CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
EDUCATION AND THE ARTS
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and
decisionmaking through research and analysis.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
INFRASTRUCTURE AND
TRANSPORTATION
This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service
of the RAND Corporation.
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
LAW AND BUSINESS
Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY
Support RAND
Purchase this document
Browse Reports & Bookstore
Make a charitable contribution
For More Information
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute
View document details
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing
later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is
prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from
RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For
information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.
This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may
include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discussions
of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and
supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality
and objectivity.
Assessing Freedom
of Movement for
Counterinsurgency
Campaigns
Ben Connable, Jason Campbell,
Bryce Loidolt, Gail Fisher
Prepared for U.S. Forces–Afghanistan
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
NATIONAL DEFENSE R ESEA R C H I N ST I T UT E
The research described in this report was prepared for the U.S. Forces–Afghanistan. The
research was conducted within the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally
funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps,
the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community under Contract W74V8H06-C-0002.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication.
ISBN: 978-0-8330-5906-2
The R AND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and
decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
R® is a registered trademark.
© Copyright 2012 RAND Corporation
Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it
is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes.
Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND
documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking
permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/
permissions.html).
Published 2012 by the RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665
RAND URL: http://www.rand.org
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;
Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org
Preface
This report examines the ways in which military staffs might assess “freedom of movement”
within the framework of a counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign assessment. The RAND
Corporation has supported the development of military campaign assessment methodology
and has directly participated in the assessment of the Vietnam, Gulf War, Kosovo, Iraq, and
Afghanistan campaigns. Therefore, this report reflects both original research and findings
drawn from the cumulative body of RAND work on the subject of military assessment. The
results will be of interest to military staffs, policymakers, and subject-matter experts engaged
in attempting to assess the Afghanistan COIN campaign, but the information and findings
presented here are also intended to contribute to the broader COIN literature. Some or all
of the findings in this report might be generalizable to prospective or other ongoing COIN
campaigns.
This research was sponsored by U.S. Forces–Afghanistan, and conducted within the
International Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research
Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine
Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.
For more information on the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center,
see http://www.rand.org/nsrd/ndri/centers/isdp.html or contact the director (contact information is provided on the web page).
iii
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix
ChAPTer One
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Issues Not Addressed in This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
How This Report Is Structured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
ChAPTer TwO
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Roots of the Concept: Literature, History, and Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Counterinsurgency Literature and Freedom of Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Civilian Freedom of Movement and Fundamental Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Doctrine and Freedom of Movement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Tying Freedom of Movement to Counterinsurgency Objectives, Strategy, and End State . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Security, Stability, and Freedom of Movement in Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Governance and Freedom of Movement in Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Infrastructure, Economic Development, and Civilian Freedom of Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Freedom of Movement as a Condition and an Indicator of Success or Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Scope, Scale, and the Interconnectedness of the Operating Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
How Varying Conditions and Needs Shape Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Considering Scope, Scale, and Interconnectivity for Centralized Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Reality and Perception: The Two Sides of Freedom of Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Actual Restrictions on Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Perceptual Restrictions on Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Assessing Perception and Actual Freedom of Movement Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Additional Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Freedom of Movement Is Often Tentative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Individual Cost-Benefit Analyses Guide Decisions to Move . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Inherent Theoretical and Practical Contradictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
v
vi
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Increasing Freedom of Movement for Civilians Also Helps Insurgents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Freedom of Movement for Civilians Is Not Always Desirable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Freedom of Movement Can Exist Where Insurgents Have Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Summary of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
ChAPTer Three
Analysis of Past and Current Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Historical Examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
A Survey of Freedom of Movement in Foreign Counterinsurgency Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Freedom of Movement in Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Freedom of Movement in Afghanistan Theater Assessment Frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Technical and Manual Collection of Physical Movement Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Traffic Volume Collection, Reporting, and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Global Positioning System Tracking of Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Manual Collection: Impact on Tactical Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Infrastructure Analysis for Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Perception Indicators: Polling, Surveys, and Other Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research Polls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Other Collection Methods and Sources for Perception Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Considerations for the Use of Perception Data in Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Proxy Metrics for Freedom of Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Attack Proxy Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Civilian and Third-Party Efforts to Assess Freedom of Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
U.S. Agency for International Development Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Cooperation for Peace and Unity Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Summary of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
ChAPTer FOur
recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Proposed Definitions for Five Categories of Freedom of Movement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Division of Labor: Finding a Balance Between Bottom-Up and Centralized Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Contextual, Bottom-Up Assessment of Freedom of Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Centralized Assessment of Collected and Available Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Building a Freedom of Movement Assessment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Collection of Data for Centralized Freedom of Movement Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Considerations for Assessing Freedom of Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Figures and Tables
Figures
1.1.
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
4.1.
The Effects-Based Assessment Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Road Construction Project in Progress in Marjeh, Afghanistan, 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Airfield Construction Completed in Zabul Province, Afghanistan, 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Froj Bridge, Panjshir, Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Notional Freedom of Movement Requirements to Sustain a Car Dealership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Freedom of Movement and Population Control: Possible Scale to Threat Level . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Assessment of South Vietnam’s Railway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Example of a Traffic Volume Mapping Product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Overhead Photographic Image of Khowst-Gardez Pass, Afghanistan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Survey Results from ANQAR Poll on Freedom of Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Attack Incident Reports over Time for Freedom of Movement Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Sample Click Count of Vehicle Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Recommended Steps for Developing a Freedom of Movement Assessment Process. . . . . . . 57
Tables
1.1.
3.1.
Effects-Based Terminology for Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Sample Freedom of Movement Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
vii
Summary
Freedom of movement (FoM) is the degree to which individuals or groups have—and perceive
that they have—the ability to move from place to place within a given environment as well as
into and out of that environment. While doctrine and professional literature on the subject of
FoM is sparse and often inconsistent, there are some clear indications that FoM is an important
consideration for COIN tactics, operations, and strategy. The purpose of this report is to examine the ways in which U.S. military staffs assess FoM to help commanders and policymakers
determine the success or failure of the counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign in Afghanistan.
The information and findings are also intended to contribute to the broader COIN literature
and might be generalizable to prospective or other ongoing COIN campaigns.
To determine how, why, and, in some cases, why not to assess FoM in Afghanistan, it
is first necessary to both define the concept in the context of COIN and to understand how
U.S. and coalition military staffs have considered FoM in operations and assessments in other
contemporary operations. Official publications show that both U.S. and coalition military
staffs have considered FoM to be an important facet of COIN operations in Vietnam, Iraq,
and Afghanistan. Reports from all three conflicts describe efforts to improve FoM for friendly
forces, to restrict FoM for insurgents, and alternatively improve or restrict FoM for civilians,
depending on the circumstances. Examples of the U.S. and coalition focus on FoM can be
found in the analysis of FoM in Vietnam War–era assessment reports, official reports on Iraq,
and reports that focus on several types of FoM in Afghanistan. Senior military officers and
defense officials often discuss FoM in the context of intermediate and long-range COIN strategy. However, FoM is mentioned only occasionally in COIN literature and in U.S. military
doctrine. Descriptions of FoM tend to be made either in passing or with insufficient context.
To date, there have been few efforts to clearly define FoM or explain how it fits within the context of campaign end state or campaign assessment.
In part because FoM is not precisely defined in the literature, neither U.S. military doctrine nor U.S. government publications on COIN provide clear instruction on how to assess
FoM. Research for this report, which included an examination of assessment processes and
reports, showed that most efforts to describe, develop, and assess FoM have been inconsistent
and poorly aligned with one another. This general inability to successfully assess FoM within
the framework of campaign assessment has undermined the ability of military commanders
and staffs to determine progress or lack of progress toward national strategic end states and
termination criteria.
ix
x
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
This report examines the roots of the FoM concept in the literature, efforts to collect data
to feed FoM assessment, and efforts to analyze FoM data through centralized assessment. The
purpose of the analysis was as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Describe what FoM is in both a very broad context and within the context of COIN.
Explain why FoM matters to counterinsurgents.
Describe the various aspects of FoM and explain how they might be assessed.
Analyze past and current efforts to assess FoM in Afghanistan.
Identify challenges that a theater assessment staff is likely to face when assessing FoM.
Recommend an approach to FoM assessment that will assist a theater assessment staff
in developing a realistic and effective assessment process.
While the question of whether or not FoM matters for COIN was incidental rather than
central to this study, research for this report revealed that the ability of civilians and other
groups to move freely within and through the operating environment is relevant to COIN
operations. It is also relevant for end-state considerations for Afghanistan, as well as for prospective COIN operations. This finding, which reflects an analysis of the literature, interviews,
and direct observation, supports the notion that COIN campaign assessment would benefit
from an analysis of FoM.
Theater assessment staffs in Afghanistan have few resources to guide their conceptual
planning or to help them collect and analyze information that might help them explain FoM
to the commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) or senior policymakers. However, despite this lack of clear guidance, both military and civilian leaders from the
policymaker to the tactical operator level have identified a number of clear concepts and objectives for FoM in Afghanistan. They place a strong emphasis on improving FoM for civilians
and reducing FoM for insurgents. These objectives are typically linked to the belief that FoM is
a human right and a means for economic development and that improving FoM will improve
the lives of Afghans to the point that they will not want to join or support the insurgency.
Whether or not these assumptions are valid, they at least provide a framework for campaign
assessment.
These assumptions and associated operations do not, however, indicate a clear and direct
connection between improved civilian FoM, reduced insurgent FoM, and campaign end-state
(or terminating) criteria that might be assessed by a theater assessment staff. Nor do these
assumptions reflect the complexities or inherent contradictions in FoM. There has been insufficient effort to determine how perception and actual FoM are linked, how they might be correlated for assessment, or how some of the other factors identified in this report might affect
FoM assessment. Furthermore, the linkage between what is perceived to be an adequate and
sustainable level of civilian FoM and subsequent support from the government toward this
end is tenuous at best. However, fostering FoM in government-controlled areas may influence
Afghan civilians to support the government because increased FoM may give them faith in the
ability of the security services to protect them from physical and economic harm. Assessing
the relationship between the existence of FoM, indicators of popular satisfaction with FoM,
and real, sustainable support for the government will require comprehensive and contextual
analysis of a number of different variables.
An analysis of historical cases sheds some light on the ways in which counterinsurgents
have attempted to address FoM. These cases, including Malaya, Thailand, Vietnam, India, and
Summary
xi
Iraq, show that counterinsurgents have focused on ensuring FoM for friendly security forces,
controlling civilian movement to isolate insurgents, and reducing FoM for insurgent cadres. In
a few cases, counterinsurgents also focused on improving civilian FoM, but it is not clear that
any counterinsurgents have considered civilian FoM in the context of the strategic end state.
Although information on how counterinsurgents have assessed FoM in non-U.S. cases is limited, it seems that, at least in some examples, the host-nation government focused on developing civilian FoM in order to develop a sense of normalcy.
In contrast to other campaigns, ISAF has focused on developing civilian FoM as a strategic end-state condition. Past and current FoM assessment at ISAF and ISAF Joint Command
(IJC) reflects a mix of approaches that rely on either a small set of proxy metrics or generalized
reporting requirements that allow subordinate staffs to develop and report FoM metrics based
on locally available information and local standards. Neither of these approaches has been
optimal; both represent best efforts in the absence of greater resources and a more complete
understanding of FoM and its relevance to ISAF strategic objectives. The nature of the FoM
data collection and assessment efforts also reflects the lack of available data, difficulty in collecting relevant data through technical means, and, possibly, a reluctance to place undue collection and reporting burdens on subordinate commands.1
The lack of a precise and broadly agreed-upon definition of FoM for all circumstances
makes it difficult to task data collection: It is hard to collect information on something that
is poorly defined and that changes unexpectedly and unevenly from place to place. Technical
and other physical collection solutions can provide some insight into actual movement, and
they can also show chokepoints that might restrict FoM. Some types of technical collection
and assessment (of imagery data or ground moving target indicator data, for example) can be
accomplished at the headquarters level, while other collection requires physical action on the
part of tactical units. Physical collection may induce risk at the tactical level, so collection
requirements deserve careful consideration. Technical and physical collection is most effective in assessing physical infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, and it can be very useful
in assessing the ability of ISAF and the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) to move
throughout the area of operations. It may be least useful in assessing combined perceptual and
actual aspects of civilian FoM.
Collecting perception data is a seemingly straightforward task, and a number of polls
already capture some of these data. However, some polls do not have sufficient granularity to
show context. Few of the polling questions are precisely tied to a clear definition of FoM for
the purposes of ISAF strategic assessment, and concerns the polling methodology may limit
the overall utility of these data for assessment. There are a number of other resources that could
help ISAF assess the perception of civilian and insurgent FoM, but these resources are not necessarily structured to fit into existing assessment processes.
The use of proxy metrics to determine FoM is a logical practice in the absence of better
information. Because the concept of FoM is nebulous, most metrics might be described as
proxy metrics to some extent: Every metric (or indicator) provides insight into the undetermined variable of FoM. If a proxy metric can show correlation with an agreed-upon standard
for FoM, then it might be useful for assessment. However, in practice, it will likely show something less: The assessment staff will probably have to make some kind of subjective judgment
1
This last point is not empirically proven, but this sentiment was reflected in numerous conversations and interviews with
ISAF and IJC staff members between late 2009 and early 2011.
xii
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
as to how the metric does or does not provide insight into FoM. There are some conceptual
problems with applying proxy metrics, such as attack reporting, to FoM assessment, and any
proxy metric must be reported with clear caveats.
Third-party reports provide good insight into possible collection and analysis methods
for FoM assessment. An examination of reports by the U.S. Agency for International Development and Cooperation for Peace and Unity show that they were not designed to meet ISAF
standards or to match up with ISAF objectives, but they do indicate how the physical collection process of click-counting (counting individual vehicle movement) can provide potentially
useful data and how physical collection is limited by the COIN operating environment. Perception polling at the village level might also be useful in providing local context, but using
samples to represent areas not covered by polls is problematic in COIN because security situations and perceptions can vary greatly from village to village, depending on the relative presence of ISAF, ANSF, Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) officials,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and insurgents.
An analysis of past and current efforts to assess FoM revealed some innovative assessment
efforts. It also revealed inherent limits in the ability to assess FoM through centralized theater
assessment processes:
•
•
•
•
It is difficult to find a metric or set of metrics that captures FoM cleanly and precisely.
Efforts to gather more information can unduly burden subordinate commands.
A lack of data undermines centralized assessment.
Finding an effective, structured approach to FoM assessment will require some cost-benefit analysis and a balance between context and aggregation.
Assuming that ISAF will continue to assess civilian FoM as a strategic objective, or as
an indicator of strategic progress, assessment staffs will have to determine how to reconcile
the dichotomy between increasing civilian FoM as a strategic objective and controlling civilian FoM as an operational objective. Further, staffs will have to determine how to differentiate between the effects of purposeful control of civilian FoM and environmental or insurgent
restrictions on that freedom. Contextual analysis will probably be necessary to unravel these
complexities.
Definitions of Freedom of Movement
Although a general definition of freedom of movement is possible, as mentioned earlier, the
lack of a precise and broadly accepted definition that is applicable in all circumstances poses
a challenge to data collection. In Afghanistan, coalition assessment staffs tend to focus on the
degree to which civilians have more or less FoM. Because the purpose of this report is to support military assessment and decisionmaking in the context of ongoing operations, assessment
of civilian FoM was at the center of this research effort. However, our analysis indicates that it
is difficult and unhelpful to consider civilian FoM in a vacuum, and FoM for a range of actors
must necessarily be factored into any assessment. The following definition of civilian FoM is
derived from an analysis of the available literature on FoM, interviews conducted with tactical
and operational staff officers, and interviews with assessment staff officers.2
2
All definitions should be considered tentative proposals, and they are presented here to help guide the discussion in this
report. The definitions are presented as formal recommendations with caveats in Chapter Four.
Summary
xiii
FoM for civilians: The ability and the perceived ability of Afghans (who do not work for the
government, security forces, or NGOs or belong to insurgent groups) to move to and from a
desired location at will and without undue danger, physical restriction, or economic burden
in order to meet their needs.
Research for this report revealed that, in Afghanistan, FoM is also relevant for (1) ISAF,
(2) ANSF, (3) Afghan government officials, (4) NGOs, and (5) insurgents. As with the definition of civilian FoM, these definitions are derived from the research for this report:
FoM for ISAF and ANSF: The ability and the perceived ability of ISAF and ANSF personnel to move to and from a desired location to achieve mission objectives without undue
threat of attack or physical restriction.
FoM for GIRoA officials: The ability and the perceived ability of government officials to
move to and from their residences or offices to any area necessary to fulfill duties without
undue threat of attack or physical restriction.
FoM for NGOs: The ability and the perceived ability of NGO staff to move to and from an
area requiring services at will and without undue danger, physical restriction, or economic
burden in order to meet needs.
FoM for insurgents: The ability and perceived ability of insurgents to move to and from an
area to transport supplies, conduct attacks, collect intelligence, or engage contacts without
threat of attack, detention, or physical limitation.
Considerations for Building an Approach to Assess Freedom of Movement
Separating the freedom to move of any these various groups from that of the others presents
substantial challenges. The assessment staff must weigh its capabilities and must recommend
to the commander what it should and should not try to assess. However, this delineation of
groups that need to move, and the different implications that their respective FoM can have for
COIN objectives, should inform both the decisionmaking process and the analysis of information collected.
FoM has both perceptual and what this report refers to as physical or “actual” aspects. It
is possible to have the perception of FoM when movement is physically or actually restricted,
and it is also possible to have the ability to move but be too fearful to do so. FoM assessment
has implications for—and is informed by—the assessment of security, economic development,
and infrastructure. In theory, assessment should capture and analyze a mix of both perceptions and actual FoM information and determine how these two aspects of FoM differ or are
interdependent. But the complexity of FoM makes it difficult to develop definitions, select
metrics, and establish thresholds for FoM assessment; it is probably not possible to know how
much FoM is necessary or sufficient for any given individual, from area to area, or over time.
This means that establishing centralized time-series thresholds for any type of FoM would be
particularly difficult, if not counterproductive and misleading.
xiv
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Commanders and assessment staffs should consider the following points when developing
an approach to FoM assessment and an assessment method:
• How should assessment differentiate between the five types of FoM identified in this
report, if at all? Which data are useful for which type of FoM assessment, and which are
useful for more than one type?
• What constitutes “normal” or (perhaps) “desirable” FoM from area to area? What do
civilians want? Is it sufficient to be “satisfied” with security, or do they also want more?
It is difficult, if not impossible, to assess civilian FoM without first understanding local
needs.
• How can perception information be captured in a way that reflects local conditions and
local needs (i.e., context), but in a format that can be aggregated?
• What are the various characteristics of physical threats, and how can information on
these threats be captured?
• What is the confluence between perception and actual FoM in a specific area and across
the theater?
• How can perception data be compared with actual reporting data in a way that produces
an accurate, holistic picture of FoM?
• Are there elements of FoM that it is not possible to assess? Why?
• How should caveats be applied to FoM assessment to ensure that findings do not exceed
the available data or methodology?
Considerations for Collecting and Assessing Freedom of Movement Data
Commanders and assessment staffs should consider the following points when developing and
executing collection requirements for FoM assessment, as well as during the assessment of FoM
data:
• There are at least five categories of FoM, each of which may complement or confound the
other.3 These categories are distinct but not necessarily independent.
• Issues of scope and scale will make it difficult to collect information that accurately
reflects FoM for civilians and insurgents across an entire theater; context matters.
• The fluidity of the COIN environment means that both the perception and reality of
FoM can and will change often, quickly, and unexpectedly. Reporting will contain leading and lagging indicators and may not reflect ground truth by the time it is assessed.
• To assess FoM, it is necessary to measure both perception and reality, because perception
might not match reality and reality might not match perception. Willingness to move,
the ability to move, and actual movement might be considered as three separate variables
or values in an assessment. It is possible to see actual movement coupled with a widespread perception that it is unsafe to move. In this way, improvement in actual movement
might not benefit coalition objectives or improve perceptions of government legitimacy.
3
ISAF’s Afghan Assessment Group could also determine that one or more of these categories should be eliminated or
combined. For example, it may view the NGO category as extraneous. It is listed here because it is mentioned fairly frequently in the literature and it seems to affect COIN outcomes. Other categories not considered in this report might also
be useful for operations and assessment.
Summary
xv
• The convergence of a purposeful coalition reduction of FoM and reports of high levels of
FoM in insurgent havens can play tricks on time-series assessments of FoM indicators. It
would be conceivable for an insurgent-held or -influenced area with high levels of FoM to
see a drop in FoM as coalition forces clear and stabilize the area, and then a subsequent
increase in FoM after the operation.
• Civilian FoM is not always desirable; in some cases, it is necessary to restrict FoM for
operations (an important element of population control) while retaining the goal of
improving overall FoM at the strategic level. Efforts to restrict FoM will shape reporting
and assessments and must be carefully monitored.
• It is possible to have a high degree of civilian FoM in insurgent-held areas: Civilians
can be happy with FoM in a way that does not support ISAF or Inteqal objectives.4 It is
not easy—and in many cases not possible—to identify differences between civilians and
insurgents for the purposes of FoM assessment.
• Increasing FoM for civilians may also increase FoM for insurgents and criminals:
Improving infrastructure, reducing roadblocks, and taking other steps to improve civilian FoM may improve insurgent FoM because Afghan insurgents tend to blend in with
the population.
• Efforts to gather more information can unduly burden subordinate commands, but a lack
of data undermines centralized assessment. Finding an effective, structured approach to
FoM assessment will require some cost-benefit analysis and a balance between context
and aggregation, as well as a collaborative risk assessment with subordinate commands.
Recommendations
Chapter Four of this report expands on the proposed definitions for the five distinct categories of FoM, discussed earlier, and provides a step-by-step guide intended to help shape the
development of a new assessment process or to improve FoM assessment processes already in
use. Building an FoM assessment process requires a comprehensive analysis of national strategic end-state and termination criteria, the ISAF and Inteqal campaign plans, input from a
number of ISAF staff sections, and a thorough cost-benefit analysis that takes into account
detailed and up-to-date theater and unit collection capabilities. Therefore, by necessity, this is
an internal process that should be conducted by a theater-level staff. The following recommendations for building an FoM assessment process are derived from research conducted for this
report, as well as 16 months of research conducted on Afghanistan assessment processes for the
U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Activity:5
• Divide FoM assessment between a bottom-up contextual and a centralized process to
address the simultaneous but somewhat paradoxical requirement for contextual understanding, which will help determine whether more or less FoM is needed in particular circumstances and will help provide the holistic understanding required for the commander
and staff to determine whether progress is being made countrywide.
• Reevaluate and reconstitute the centralized assessment of FoM to better link FoM
assessment to objectives. Clarify collection and reporting requirements for subordinate
4
Inteqal, the Dari and Pashto word for transition, is the designation used to identify the official transfer of security responsibilities in Afghanistan from ISAF to GIRoA.
5
For Connable, forthcoming.
xvi
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
elements, better analyze cost-benefit and risk calculations for tactical collection requirements, determine how assessment might address operational efforts to develop FoM, and
effectively divide the focus between a bottom-up and a centralized assessment process.
• Accept that all FoM metrics are, to varying degrees, proxies for better, more accurate
measurement and assessment. Attempt to tie metrics more closely to desired objectives
and conditions.
• Reevaluate polling questions in official polls to ensure that questions related to FoM are
directly linked to ISAF and Inteqal objectives and adequately inform theater assessment.
They should also meet local and seasonal conditions and reflect local context in each area
of interest to the greatest extent possible. Some collection should focus on what civilians
want and need from FoM in each area.
• Separate the different types of FoM for assessment. Develop ways to assess ISAF/ANSF,
GIRoA, NGO, and insurgent FoM (as needed by the ISAF commander) as enabling conditions or enabling indicators to better support and assess civilian FoM.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank LTC Bret Van Poppel and COL Douglas Hersh of ISAF’s Afghan
Assessment Group, and MAJ Gary Kramlich of the 82nd Airborne Division, for their advice,
assistance, and support. We also thank the reviewers of this report, Walter L. Perry at RAND
and MGEN (ret.) Eric Olson, who provided constructive and insightful feedback that helped
us improve the presentation of our research.
xvii
Abbreviations
ANQAR
Afghanistan National Quarterly Assessment Report
ANSF
Afghan National Security Forces
COIN
counterinsurgency
CPAU
Cooperation for Peace and Unity
EBA
effects-based assessment
FM
field manual
FoM
freedom of movement
GIRoA
Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
GPS
Global Positioning System
GVN
Government of (South) Vietnam
IED
improvised explosive device
IJC
International Security Assistance Force Joint Command
ISAF
International Security Assistance Force
JP
joint publication
MOE
measure of effectiveness
MOP
measure of performance
NATO
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NGO
nongovernmental organization
RC
regional command
UN
United Nations
USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development
xix
ChApter One
Introduction
The purpose of counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign assessment is to provide military and
policy decisionmakers with an understanding of how a campaign is progressing toward achieving the strategic end state defined by national policy. Assessment is typically a military task,
and in Afghanistan theater-level assessment, groups in the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF) and ISAF Joint Command (IJC) are tasked with assessing the ISAF campaign
plan and supporting assessment of the joint and combined transition plan (Inteqal).1 These
efforts tend to rely on a modified version of effects-based assessment (EBA), as defined in U.S.
and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) doctrinal publications. EBA requires the
analysis of strategic end states to find and apply measures of effectiveness (MOEs), measures of
performance (MOPs), and indicators that might help determine progress.2 Table 1.1 provides a
comparison of MOEs, MOPs, and indicators, and Figure 1.1 shows how MOEs and MOPs are
derived from strategic and operational objectives and how they fit within the campaign assessTable 1.1
Effects-Based Terminology for Assessment
MOE
MOP
Indicator
Answers the question: Are we
doing the right things?
Answers the question: Are we
doing things right?
Answers the question: What is the status
of this MOe or MOp?
Measures purpose
accomplishment
Measures task completion
Measures raw data inputs to inform
MOes and MOps
Measures why in the mission
statement
Measures what in the mission
statement
Information used to make measuring
what or why possible
no hierarchical relationship to
MOps
no hierarchical relationship to
MOes
Subordinate to MOes and MOps
Often formally tracked in formal
assessment plans
Often formally tracked in
execution matrixes
Often formally tracked in formal
assessment plans
typically challenging to choose
the correct ones
typically simple to choose the
correct ones
typically as challenging to select
correctly as the supported MOe or MOp
SOUrCe: hQDA, 2010, p. 6-3, table 6-1.
1
Inteqal, the Dari and Pashto word for transition, is the designation used to identify the official transfer of security responsibilities in Afghanistan from ISAF to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA).
2
These are colloquially referred to as “metrics” although they do not necessarily fit within strict scientific definitions of
metric or metrics. For the purposes of this report we will use the term metrics to encompass measures of effect, measures
of performance, and indicators.
1
2
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Figure 1.1
The Effects-Based Assessment Process
Level
Guidance
National strategic
Theater strategic
End state and objectives
Assessed using measures of
effectiveness—MOEs (Are
we doing the right things?)
End state and mission
Objectives
Effects
Tasks
Operational
Mission
Objectives
Effects
MOE development is supported by
Joint Intelligence Preparation of
the Operational Environment
Adversary courses
of action
Indicators
Centers of gravity
High-value
targets
Tasks
Tactical
Mission
Objectives
Combat tasks (particularly fires) use
Combat Assessment
Tasks
Battle damage
assessment
Assessed using measures of
performance—MOPs (Are
we doing things right?)
Munitions
effectiveness
assessment
Reattack or
future targeting
SOURCE: U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2007, p. IV-20, Figure IV-6.
RAND TR1014-1.1
ment framework. Taken together, the table and the figure represent standing U.S. military
doctrine on EBA. Assessment staffs in Afghanistan use effects-based language from doctrine
and build some assessments from MOEs and MOPs, but other assessments are narrative or
consist simply of annotated time-series charts.3
Figure 1.1 shows how military staffs at each level of command should feed assessment
with information and (to varying degrees) analysis. At the theater level and below, each staff
section focuses on assessing “effects” and “performance” using MOEs and MOPs as defined in
Table 1.1. Intelligence reporting also feeds the assessment process (i.e., joint intelligence preparation of the environment). This system was developed to address conventional warfare and
not irregular operations like COIN; this is obvious in the focus on battle damage assessment
and associated actions at the tactical level. In this process, the equivalent of the battalion staff
has no role in measuring or assessing effects, but in COIN, the battalion staff may be the one
most capable of delivering relevant input into the assessment process. This incongruity undermines the ability of all military staffs to develop a comprehensive COIN assessment that is
anchored in accurate and contextual information.
Together, Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1 also generally describe the process by which military
commanders and staffs determine their centralized, or “core,” metrics for assessment. Identifying, defining, and vetting metrics has historically proved challenging for assessment staffs
in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In the Afghanistan campaign, one metric (or MOE)—
freedom of movement (FoM)—has been particularly elusive. ISAF has made efforts to address
the challenges of FoM assessment: In 2010, a FoM working group established by ISAF explored
3
A more detailed explanation of EBA can be found in Connable, forthcoming, and the U.S. Army’s Field Manual 5-0,
The Operations Process (HQDA, 2010, Appendix H).
Introduction
3
the issue and developed a proxy methodology to address this gap in the assessment process,
but the findings from the working group did not fully describe the challenges of collecting
data and assessing FoM. As of early 2011, theater-level assessment entities at NATO, IJC, and
subordinate commands in Afghanistan continued to try to capture and assess this metric in
the absence of a common definition, means of data collection, and substantive link to strategic
end state.4
Purpose
The target audience for this report is U.S. military commanders, staffs, and experts engaged in
efforts to assess the COIN campaign in Afghanistan. The purpose of the report is to inform
the target audience and the broader COIN community as to how and why a military staff
might assess FoM to support decisionmaking at the tactical and theater levels of command. To
explain how and why (or why not) to assess FoM, it is important to examine the concept and
challenges of FoM in some detail. Because it is necessary to address FoM for COIN in general
terms to explain its role in assessment, an ancillary purpose of this report is to examine FoM
as a condition and objective in irregular warfare and in Afghanistan. Consequently, this report
should also inform policy debate over COIN end-state conditions. The specific purposes of this
examination are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Describe what FoM is in both a very broad context and within the context of COIN.
Explain why FoM matters to counterinsurgents.
Describe the various aspects of FoM and explain how they might be assessed.
Analyze past and current efforts to assess FoM in Afghanistan.
Identify challenges that a theater assessment staff is likely to face when assessing FoM.
Recommend an approach to FoM assessment that will assist a theater assessment staff
in developing a realistic and effective assessment process.
Research Methodology
After conducting an initial literature review, we approached our analysis along two parallel
tracks and developed key findings and recommendations by comparing the findings from
these two tracks. One track involved analyzing FoM as a concept in order to ascertain theoretical best practices, while the other entailed an examination of past and current efforts to assess
FoM in Afghanistan. The findings reported here reflect a convergence of these two distinct
research efforts.
Track one research involved a review of historical case-study literature, COIN literature
by prominent theorists and practitioners, and U.S. joint and service doctrine on operations and
COIN. This track was also guided by iterative discussions between RAND researchers after
each phase of review, discussions with assessment experts, and interviews with members of
theater- and regional-level staff officers in Afghanistan. Track two research also relied on interviews and iterative discussions, as well as a review of past and current official documentation
4
IJC has developed a definition and issued an order on metrics, but the order is restricted.
4
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
on FoM and FoM assessment in Afghanistan. This track examined how assessment staffs had
attempted to assess and report findings on FoM at various commands in Afghanistan.
Issues Not Addressed in This Report
This report assumes that ISAF will continue to rely on a centralized, effects-based approach to
assessment that is informed by subordinate analyses. Therefore, it does not make recommendations for fundamental changes in the assessment process; findings are designed to fit within
the current process. A separate annex to this report addresses some specific assessment issues
that pertain directly to ongoing operations. The annex was delivered to an appropriate theater
assessment group in Afghanistan and is not available for public release.
How This Report Is Structured
This report is structured to reflect the two-track approach of the overall research effort. It
begins with a background discussion of the concept of FoM in various contexts in Chapter
Two. The literature review addresses some of the root documentation of FoM in human rights
publications but focuses on traditional and doctrinal publications on COIN. The chapter then
addresses basic concepts of FoM in COIN and frames some of the challenges that assessment
staffs are likely to face in assessing FoM. Chapter Three examines past efforts to assess FoM in
COIN. It also examines assessment methods, technical collection methods, and third-party
(nonmilitary) assessment efforts in Afghanistan. Building from the two tracks (theory and
practice), Chapter Four presents recommendations designed to help commanders and assessment staffs build a logical, practical, and comprehensive approach to assessing FoM in the
context of Afghanistan.
ChApter tWO
How the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform
Assessment
This chapter reflects our analysis of the concept of FoM in COIN operations and how it can
be used to inform assessment. It begins by looking at FoM from a very broad perspective by
describing international theories that have been applied to FoM assessment and then examines
the ways in which FoM is presented in the COIN literature and doctrine. The intent of the literature and doctrine review is to show what is and is not available to theater assessment analysts
in Afghanistan and to identify gaps and inconsistencies in FoM terms and theories.
Roots of the Concept: Literature, History, and Doctrine
On the surface, “freedom of movement” is self-defining—it is the freedom to move—but a
self-defining condition or assessment indicator is very difficult to capture, measure, analyze,
and describe. What exactly does FoM mean? Where did the concept originate, and why is it
associated with success in COIN? This section briefly examines the roots and definitions of
FoM in three contexts: (1) the historical literature on COIN, (2) international human rights
standards, and (3) U.S. COIN doctrine.
Counterinsurgency Literature and Freedom of Movement
The historical and case-study literature on COIN only loosely addresses FoM. A review of
historical literature, for example, revealed scattered mentions of FoM in a range of contexts.
Different authors—some counterinsurgents, some insurgents—mention either improving
or restricting FoM for counterinsurgent military units, government officials, civilians, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and insurgents. Most of the literature focuses on FoM for
counterinsurgents and insurgents, however. Not surprisingly, the literature on COIN frequently
recommends reducing insurgent FoM and improving counterinsurgent FoM, while insurgent literature mirrors these recommendations. Civilian FoM is mentioned sporadically, and
often in the context of imposing restrictions to separate civilians from insurgents. In his book
Counterinsurgency, David Kilcullen includes “civilian accessibility” in a list of recommended
metrics but does not expound on the concept,1 while David Galula believed it was necessary to
1 Kilcullen, 2010, p. 63. In Counterinsurgency, Kilcullen generally addresses government officials’ movement and refers
to civilian FoM only as an indicator of insurgent presence. He describes civilian “accessibility” as an indicator. According
to Kilcullen, civilian accessibility is the degree to which civilian government officials can move about without insurgent
harassment. He contends that greater accessibility shows less insurgent presence or control and that less accessibility shows
more insurgent presence or control.
5
6
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
control civilian movement during a period of operations that is analogous to the “hold” phase
in contemporary COIN doctrine.2 In Defeating Communist Insurgency, Sir Robert Thompson
also describes civilian-control measures, defining FoM in restrictive terms.3 John J. McCuen
places an emphasis on the need for “mobile warfare” and on restricting insurgent movement
throughout his often-overlooked The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War. He also calls for the
creation of “forbidden zones” through which insurgents would be prevented from traveling
and describes ways of restricting civilian FoM to isolate civilians from insurgents.4
The classic “how-to” literature on insurgency (e.g., Mao Tse-Tung’s On Guerrilla War,
Che Guevara’s Guerrilla Warfare, Vo Nguyen Giap’s People’s War, People’s Army, and Carlos
Marighella’s Minimanual of the Urban Insurgent) indicates that insurgents depend on FoM
to conduct successful guerrilla operations and that they place a high value on restricting the
movement of counterinsurgents.5 For example, Guevara states, “The fundamental characteristic of a guerrilla band is mobility,” and he dedicates significant attention to describing ways
of reducing the mobility of the counterinsurgent.6 A survey of case-study literature revealed a
historic focus on population control or pacification (e.g., Malaya, Vietnam).7 Most mentions of
FoM are in the context of guerrilla or counterguerrilla operations (COIN kinetic operations),
while there is little emphasis on ensuring free movement for the population.
Counterinsurgents could look to the COIN literature to inform efforts to improve coalition FoM and reduce insurgent FoM, and they could also find sufficient sources to recommend
context-appropriate efforts to restrict civilian FoM. However, they would be hard pressed to
find sufficient justification in the literature to link civilian FoM to a strategic end state. The
following section explores the more likely sources of civilian FoM for COIN operations and
assessment.
Civilian Freedom of Movement and Fundamental Human Rights
Civilian FoM is an essential element of “human security,” itself a loosely defined concept that
serves as the basis for (or a way to describe) rights theories and international rights treaties.
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a United Nations (UN) General
Assembly proclamation, states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence
within the borders of each state,” and, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including
2 Galula discusses population control in several places in Counterinsurgency Warfare (1964/2005). For example, the third
of his eight principal steps that counterinsurgents must take to succeed is to establish contact with, and control of, the
population. In this step, he recommends measures to effect control of the population, which necessarily includes FoM
(pp. 81–86). Later, he lists two restrictions for villages that are being secured: a night curfew and control over visitors
(p. 118).
3
Thompson, 1966/2005, p. 112.
4
See McCuen, 1966, especially pp. 235–239.
5
See, e.g., Mao Tse-Tung, 1961/2000, pp. 96–98, and Marighella, 1972/2008, pp. 62–65.
6
Guevara, 1961/2008, p. 20.
7
For example, a district report from Vietnam described restrictions on Viet Cong FoM, and both the Malaya and Vietnam hamlet relocation programs were designed to control the access and movement of the population. See U.S. Military
Assistance Command, Vietnam, 1968, p. 18. The Commander’s Summary of the MACV Objectives Plan defines FoM in two
contexts: First, “when normal functions of an effective local government are conducted and there is freedom of movement
both day and night, except for [Government of (South) Vietnam] administrative controls,” and, second, to “reduce enemy
movement”—specifically, “by saturating an area with ambushes, enemy movement can be substantially reduced. Defense of
the hamlets and villages will be facilitated by the fact that the enemy will find it difficult to assemble for an attack” (p. 25).
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment
7
his own, and to return to his country.”8 Similarly, the UN’s International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights defines “liberty of movement” as an “indisputable condition for the free
development of a person,” adding that “the right to move freely relates to the whole territory
of a state.” Some UN documents tie FoM to economic freedom and development, but only in
very general terms.9 These various efforts to enshrine the right to movement are subjective and
do not define FoM or explain why the freedom to move is important in a general sense or in
terms of COIN.
Official statements on NATO strategy in Afghanistan conflate FoM for civilians with the
concept of fundamental human rights, thereby tying FoM to a coalition strategic end state.
In 2009 the commander of ISAF stated that FoM is one of the “basic elements of life,” while
an official NATO documentary video on the contribution of Afghan security forces to FoM
declared, “Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right.”10 According to Article 39 of
the Constitution of Afghanistan, which draws on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
“Every Afghan shall have the right to travel and settle in any part of the country, except in
areas forbidden by law,” and Afghans also have the right to freely travel into and out of Afghanistan.11 Although research for this report uncovered no explicit link between civilian FoM,
human rights, and COIN strategy in official military doctrinal publications, it appears that
policymakers, commanders, and staffs have linked increased civilian FoM with both human
rights and a successful end state in Afghanistan. It is unclear whether this linkage is derived
from Article 39 of the Constitution of Afghanistan or whether it was developed through other
analysis.12
Historical cases and doctrine provide some limited insight into the links between FoM,
human rights, and COIN strategy. As discussed in greater detail in Chapter Three, both sides
in the Vietnam War identified FoM as a fundamental human right. Senior U.S. military officers serving in Iraq stated that free and fair elections there were not possible without FoM,
and in 2004, then–Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz highlighted that FoM was
included as a fundamental human right in the U.S.-sponsored Transitional Administrative
Law for Iraq.13
There may be an inherent link between the widely acknowledged right to FoM and
COIN strategy in doctrine. Since at least the late 1960s, official U.S. COIN strategy has been
population-centric. Joint Publication (JP) 3-24, Counterinsurgency Operations, clearly spells out
the need to create “legitimate social, political, economic, and security institutions that meet the
population’s general expectations,” adding, “The support of the people is the most vital factor
in the long-term success of any COIN effort.”14 U.S. Army Field Manual (FM) 3-24, Counterinsurgency, states that “each side aims to get the people to accept its governance or authority as
8
UN, 1948.
9
See, e.g., Jolly and Ray, 2006.
10
Sciutto, 2009; NATO, 2008.
11
Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 2004, Article 39.
12
The roots of FoM in ISAF campaign strategy are unclear. Discussions with ISAF staff officers indicated that at least some
current staff are unclear as to how FoM developed prominence in the campaign assessment process.
13
Cucolo, 2010; Wolfowitz, 2004.
14
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2009b, pp. III-5, III-1.
8
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
legitimate.”15 If a population perceives FoM to be a fundamental human right, then that same
population might perceive the lack of FoM to indicate a lack of government legitimacy. Therefore, improving FoM might improve the perception of government legitimacy. Because the
literature insufficiently addresses the link between civilian FoM and COIN strategy, this logic
chain is hypothetical and presumptive rather than empirical. Further, it is not clear that any
generalizable rule tying civilian perception of FoM to human rights—and then to government
legitimacy—could be established for COIN doctrine or even across a specific theater, such as
Afghanistan. The link between civilian FoM and COIN strategy is examined in greater depth
in the remainder of this chapter.
Doctrine and Freedom of Movement
Military staffs tend to rely on a common understanding of complex issues to provide a baseline
for planning and operations. While operations necessarily diverge from doctrine as specific
circumstances, friction, and the fog of war require, it would seem useful to have a common
baseline of understanding for broad terms, such as FoM, to prevent uncoordinated actions and
poorly informed, ad hoc solutions to common problems. But U.S. military doctrine and the
U.S. Counterinsurgency Guide touch only briefly on the subject of FoM.16 None of the documents reviewed for this report clearly defines the term, and they provide little guidance for
either operational or assessment staffs as to how they might incorporate FoM concepts into
planning or assessment. Doctrine has more to say about controlling the population in COIN,
but those references address only the situations in which restricting FoM is important, not
those in which expanding it is a priority. What to do in these latter circumstances is implied in
discussions of development and economic activity in COIN, but not directly and not in a way
that helps in developing or employing assessment mechanisms. Principal references include the
following:
• JP 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, does not
define FoM but briefly mentions “freedom of action” in several sections.17 (Also see FMs
3-0 and 5-0, below.)
• JP 3-0, Joint Operations, briefly mentions “freedom of movement” for enemy forces but
does not clearly define the term. It generally implies that FoM is the enemy’s ability to
move without threat of friendly action.18 This capstone joint publication—arguably the
principle source for joint operational doctrine along with JP 5-0—does not define or
explain any type of FoM to policymakers, commanders, or joint staffs.
• JP 3-24, Counterinsurgency Operations, describes FoM as a “prerequisite for insurgency”
on p. VIII-13, but it does not explain why; “freedom of action” for insurgents on p. II-26;
“freedom of movement” for insurgents on p. II-26; “freedom of maneuver” on p. X-11;
and freedom of movement for criminals on p. A-2. It does not define or explain these
terms in detail. In general, it implies that counterinsurgents should try to restrict the ability of insurgents to move freely, but it fails to address the issue in a way that would provide
15
HQDA, 2006c, p. 1-1.
16
See U.S. Government Interagency Counterinsurgency Initiative, 2009.
17
See U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2011.
18
See U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2010, p. III-7.
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment
•
•
•
•
•
9
a clear foundation for the development of theater strategy, interim operational objectives,
or end state.19
JP 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, mentions “freedom of action” and “freedom of [operational] theater access” in terms of friendly forces maneuver, but it does not define these
terms. It also does not clearly explain why these freedoms are operationally or strategically
important, nor does it expound on any of them.20
U.S. Army FMs 3-0 (Operations) and 5-0 (The Operations Process) mention “freedom of
action,” which they use to describe the extent to which U.S. operations orders allow subordinates the freedom to act without direction, or the freedom to move about the battlefield unrestrained by obstacles or enemy action. However, like JPs 3-0 and 5-0, they do
not explain how or why freedom of action is important in a way that would help a staff
shape planning, operations, and assessment.21
U.S. Army FM 3-24 (and Marine Corps Warfare Publication 3-33.5), Counterinsurgency,
describes methods of population control from pp. 5-21 to 5-23, FoM for insurgents in
various sections, and FoM for civilians in a list titled “Example of progress indicators” on
p. 5-28. It briefly mentions that FoM for people, goods, and communications is a “classic
measure to determine if an insurgency has denied areas in physical, electronic, or print
domains.” This quote represents the depth of the examination of FoM in the publication. As in other doctrinal literature, this brief mention of FoM is insufficient to explain
its precise connection to insurgent activity, when it is good or bad, or how it might be
measured.22
The U.S. Government Counterinsurgency Guide mentions the “freedom to conduct economic activity” (p. 22) as an element of human security and as a requirement for the
successful operation of NGOs. These brief mentions are not expounded upon in any
meaningful way.23
Marine Corps doctrine generally does not refer to FoM but discusses friendly and enemy
maneuver at length. The 1940 Small Wars Manual states, “When information of hostile
forces is lacking or meager, recourse to patrolling for the purpose of denying the opposing
forces terrain and freedom of movement may be the only effective form of offensive action
open to the commander.”24
Military staff officers depend on doctrine at least in part to guide them in the development of plans, operations, and assessment, yet doctrine provides almost no guidance on
why FoM matters to COIN operations, strategy, or end state, or how and why a staff should
assess FoM for the commander. Therefore, almost all campaign assessment of FoM is necessarily ad hoc, placing undue burden on subordinate units attempting to capture and report information to feed a poorly understood metric and on assessment staff struggling to understand a
very complex and challenging issue.
19
See U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2009b.
20
See U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2006.
21
See HQDA, 2008, 2010.
22
See HQDA, 2006c.
23
See U.S. Government Interagency Counterinsurgency Initiative, 2009.
24
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, 1940, p. 18.
10
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Tying Freedom of Movement to Counterinsurgency Objectives, Strategy, and
End State
And I want you to imagine a society in which there is no freedom of movement, in which
you are confined to your house and to your compound and to your field, in which you are
so suppressed and oppressed by the Taliban and the narcobarons, that you’re not able to
move out of Marja and go see your family in Lashkar Gar. The Taliban control all the road
junctions and all the exits to the area. They tax you for all of the crops and in particular the
poppy that you’re forced to grow.
—Major General Nick Carter, Commanding General, Regional Command South25
Accurate and relevant assessment requires a clear understanding of both how and why strategy
and operations were conceived, as well as what strategy and operations are expected to achieve.
This section builds on the sparse FoM literature and doctrine to describe (1) why FoM might
matter in COIN and in Afghanistan, (2) how FoM could be linked to theater objectives in
Afghanistan, and (3) the different types of FoM and how they relate to each other in broad
terms. Literature and doctrine hint at five separate types of FoM. The descriptions presented
here are purposely concise; defining each of these categories requires a deeper understanding
of the issues that affect FoM and FoM assessment. More detailed definitions and caveats are
presented in Chapter Four. It might not always be necessary to consider all five of these categories for operations or assessment, and this list should not preclude the consideration of other
types of FoM.
It is difficult to define the term civilian for the purposes of assessment. A civilian might
be an Afghan farmer who interacts with government officials only when he or she needs a
permit or assistance, but it could be a jirga (council) leader who has a semigovernmental role.
An Afghan “civilian” could be a part-time insurgent or an insurgent supporter. In any event, it
is very difficult to separate insurgents from the civilian population for the purposes of assessment. Any effort to assess insurgent FoM will probably require assistance from an intelligence
staff, though it should be noted that the intelligence staff will not have comprehensive knowledge either. And, because both civilians and insurgents generally benefit from increased FoM
and suffer from decreased FoM, assessing these two categories distinctly may not be possible.
With these points in mind, we derived the following categories of FoM from the research
for this report:
1. Civilian: the civilian (defined, for the purposes of this report, as local civilians who are
not insurgents, NGO staff, police, or government officials) population’s perception that
individuals are safe to move without undue threat of danger or undue economic burden,
and the civilian population’s ability to act on that perception
2. Friendly and host-nation military and police (in the Afghan case, Afghan National
Security Forces, or ANSF): ability to maneuver and to control lines of communication
3. Government officials: ability to move to and from anywhere duties require
4. NGO (or local and foreign humanitarian assistance providers): ability to move to and
from areas that require assistance
5. Insurgent: ability to move without security-force restrictions.
25
Carter, 2010.
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment
11
It might seem logical at first to assume that civilian FoM would necessarily extend to FoM
for NGO staff and government officials, but this has not been the case in practice. Civilians
affiliated with neither the government nor NGOs could be free to move while insurgents target
government officials or NGOs. Conversely, officials or well-guarded NGO staff might have
adequate security to move while most civilians do not. These three groups might also move in
different patterns and in different areas. Therefore, for the purposes of campaign assessment,
it may make sense to address all five of the FoM categories separately. It is important to note,
however, that the categories are interdependent to varying degrees from place to place and over
time, and some factors affect everyone regardless of affiliation. For example, the destruction
of a bridge over an otherwise impassable gorge affects ground movement for all five categories.
Each of the five categories affects, and is affected by, ISAF operations intended to improve
security, governance, and development in Afghanistan—the three “lines of operation” typically identified in planning and assessment documents. The following three sections address
how these lines of operation relate to FoM and subsequently to strategic objectives.
Security, Stability, and Freedom of Movement in Afghanistan
U.S. COIN doctrine recognizes that the first step in a COIN campaign, and the first phase in
any specific COIN operation, is the establishment of population security. FM 3-24 describes
the phased approach to COIN: clear-hold-build. This approach has been modified to “shapeclear-hold-build-transition” (or variations of these steps) since the manual’s publication in
2006, but security remains an important first step and, ideally, a sustained condition in any
operation. The manual states that “COIN efforts should begin by controlling key areas. Security and influence then spread out from secured areas.”26 By inference, then, securing access
points and routes to control and, if necessary, restricting movement—at least temporarily—are
integral parts of doctrinal COIN operations.
These doctrinal criteria are broadly reflected in U.S. and ISAF strategy for Afghanistan
and in the focus of COIN operations there. ISAF focuses on both population and route security,
and the U.S. Government Integrated Civilian-Military Campaign Plan for Support to Afghanistan links FoM to “population security,” advising counterinsurgents to “[i]ncrease security on
major roads for improved freedom of movement for people and agricultural goods and protection against narcotics-related violence and intimidation.”27 Security concerns revolve around
the control of modes of access to population centers and the restriction of insurgent FoM
to improve stability. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff identified route security and
population control as key elements of the plan to secure the city of Kandahar: “We will establish freedom of movement along the ring road and build a bypass south of Kandahar. And we
will better control access to the city itself along its main arteries.”28 Security operations focus
on attacking insurgents to create FoM for civilians, or sometimes simply to reduce insurgent
FoM to improve overall security. For example, an April 2011 operation against an explosive
device cell leader in Kandahar was described as an “effort to create more freedom of movement
for the local citizens living within the province.”29 Another operation in Kandahar Province
26
HQDA, 2006c, p. 5-18.
27
U.S. Government, 2009b, p. 19. The plan lists FoM as a “priority objective” for population security on page 5.
28
Garamone, 2010.
29
ISAF Joint Command, 2011e.
12
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
was described as “a deliberate clearing operation aimed at disrupting the Taliban’s freedom
of movement.”30 Operations designed to specifically affect insurgents can also be defensive in
nature. In Regional Command (RC) North, Afghan National Police were assigned to secure a
number of locations to “deny insurgent freedom of movement.”31 In at least one case, a commander viewed population security as a means of reducing insurgent FoM:
As the local Afghan’s life improves, as he enjoys the benefits of improved security, development and reconstruction, he begins to believe that [the Afghan government’s] vision of the
future is a better alternative to the life he led under the Taliban, and he begins to help coalition forces deny the Taliban freedom of movement, logistical support, and money.32
Ultimately, all these security operations are conducted with the intent of improving stability in an effort to set the stage for transition to Afghan control and, presumably, to help
ensure that the Afghans can sustain security and stability beyond the transition phase. Movement security might be considered either an interim or enabling objective along the path of the
campaign arc toward transition, as well as an enduring strategic condition.
Governance and Freedom of Movement in Afghanistan
According to FM 3-24, “The primary objective of any COIN operation is to foster development of effective governance by a legitimate government.”33 The manual specifically encourages
the establishment of governance during the “hold” phase of COIN operations. It states that the
counterinsurgent should “[e]stablish a firm government presence and control over the area and
populace” and “a government political apparatus to replace the insurgent apparatus.”34 This
would require not only capable government officials with appropriate authority (e.g., a governor, judge, health worker with access to suitable medical supplies) but also conditions allowing
these officials to move into and out of the operational area without undue threat of violence or
hardship. Therefore, FoM for government officials is an enabling condition for specific COIN
operations (e.g., an operation to secure a specific city). Any COIN strategy that calls for lasting stability should also consider government FoM to be a strategic end-state criteria. ISAF
strategy seems to be in alignment with these assumptions. For example, an IJC news release on
the progress of Operation Moshtarak stated, “Freedom of movement is the key to delivering
governance—in the form of traditional shuras as well as in health services, education and the
judiciary.”35
Because effective representative governance tends to depend on popular perception of
legitimacy, all five categories of FoM are relevant to governance: If security forces cannot move
to protect the population, the government loses legitimacy; if NGOs are incapable of delivering
services, legitimacy is similarly questioned; free movement of insurgents is a direct challenge to
government legitimacy. Civilian FoM can be more directly linked to the government’s ability
30
ISAF Joint Command, 2011d.
31
ISAF Joint Command, 2011a.
32
Colonel David Furness, quoted in ISAF Joint Command, 2010d; emphasis added.
33
HQDA, 2006c, p. 1-21.
34
HQDA, 2006c, p. 5-20.
35
ISAF Joint Command, 2010b.
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment
13
to deliver services. Typically, civilians are required to travel to government offices to conduct
transactions or attend to other needs, such as obtaining permits, filing claims, or attending
court. If civilians are unable to travel to government offices, they cannot benefit from these
services, and it becomes more difficult to establish government legitimacy—a situation that
can be compounded if government officials also cannot move to and from their place of duty.
Infrastructure, Economic Development, and Civilian Freedom of Movement
COIN doctrine describes the need to build infrastructure and economic opportunity during
the “build” phase of a COIN campaign, or during specific COIN operations. Among other
possible projects, it suggests “building and improving roads.”36 ISAF and its subordinate elements have placed an emphasis on highlighting successful infrastructure projects, and many
of these projects are tied to the 2001 U.S. presidential Afghanistan Road Initiative, which sets
goals for the development of road networks to improve civilian FoM and economic development.37 A survey of official statements and public affairs releases from ISAF, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) showed that
both the military and civilian agencies tasked with prosecuting the war are investing heavily in
building road, rail, and air infrastructure to improve civilian FoM. Figure 2.1 depicts a 2011
road infrastructure development project in Marjeh, Afghanistan, and Figure 2.2 shows an airstrip constructed in 2006 in Zabul Province, Afghanistan.
Official sources directly link improved FoM to improved economic opportunity, which,
in turn, appears to be identified with the establishment of both stability and normalcy. In the
words of GEN David H. Petraeus, the commanding general of ISAF,
Sound strategy demands the use of all the instruments of power. This vision for Afghanistan and the region makes a compelling case that transport and trade can help restore
the central role of Afghanistan in Central Asia. By once again becoming a transport hub,
Afghanistan can regain economic vitality and thrive as it did in the days of the Silk Road.38
An official U.S. Central Command briefing identifies four “priority” infrastructure projects to support these objectives: (1) completion of the Ring Road and Kabul-Herat Highway;
(2) completion of the trans-Afghan rail lines; (3) construction of a Turkmenistan-AfghanistanPakistan-India natural gas pipeline; and (4) completion of electrical transmission lines linking
Central Asia, Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, and India.39 Analyses by noted subject-matter
experts also recommend the development of internal and cross-border infrastructure.40 Generally, such literature and combat reporting from Afghanistan emphasizes the importance of
roads and bridges in the more geographically restricted areas of Afghanistan, where the loss or
creation (or repair) of a single road or bridge can respectively isolate or connect a sizable region
and population. Figure 2.3 depicts the Froj Bridge in the mountainous Panjshir Province,
36
HQDA, 2006c, p. 5-21.
37
See USAID’s Status of Presidential Initiatives for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005 (USAID, 2003, 2005a, 2006).
38
Rosenberger, 2010, p. 6. This statement is attributed to Petraeus in several documents, but the original source is not
available. This particular source is an official U.S. Central Command briefing, so the quote’s inclusion is officially sanctioned by the combatant command that oversees U.S. participation in the Afghanistan campaign.
39
Rosenberger, 2010, p. 10.
40
See, e.g., Starr and Kuchins, 2010.
14
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Figure 2.1
Road Construction Project in Progress in Marjeh, Afghanistan, 2011
SOURCE: ISAF photo.
RAND TR1014-2.1
Figure 2.2
Airfield Construction Completed in Zabul Province, Afghanistan, 2006
SOURCE: USAID photo by Jennifer Ragland, in USAID, undated(c).
RAND TR1014-2.2
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment
15
Figure 2.3
Froj Bridge, Panjshir, Afghanistan
SOURCE: Ashcraft, 2011.
RAND TR1014-2.3
which is noted to be “the sole access point for more than 6,000 families in Anaba District,
Afghanistan.”41 The destruction of this bridge would likely have a significant impact on the
lives of these 6,000 families, as well as on the ability of security forces and government officials
to develop this population’s trust and support.42
Gen. James N. Mattis, commanding general of U.S. Central Command, also reinforced
the strategic importance of infrastructure development, stating that such development facilitated economic opportunity, which, in turn, generates incentive for reconciliation and the
reintegration of insurgents. He called these projects and associated objectives “fundamental to
a sound counterinsurgency campaign”:
We are also pursuing infrastructure initiatives—for example, building roads, rail, and
installing electrical grids and transmission lines—to capitalize on Afghanistan’s potential
as a Central Asian economic hub. A regional transport network facilitates the creation of
private sector jobs and provides additional incentives for reconcilable elements of the insurgency to abandon the fight. Ultimately, such economic development reduces the need for
U.S. forces and underpins long-term transition activities and is fundamental to a sound
counterinsurgency campaign.43
This statement links infrastructure development to economic development, and it seems
to identify development as an interim objective that will contribute to the strategic end state
(i.e., transition to Afghan control). Infrastructure development would allow Afghans to get
goods to market and travel to markets to purchase those goods, and it would allow engineers
41
Ashcraft, 2011.
42
It might also prevent insurgents from entering the district or from leaving the district to attack other population centers.
The dichotomy inherent in physical freedom and restriction is addressed later in this chapter.
43
Mattis, 2011, p. 21.
16
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
and construction equipment to travel from point to point to undertake nongovernment projects. This economic activity might help reduce some of the root causes of insurgency, or at least
improve the perception of government legitimacy.44 At least in this view, economic development is a stepping-stone to eventual success and not a strategic end-state condition in itself.
Therefore, improving infrastructure for FoM in Afghanistan might be considered an enabling
condition or interim campaign objective. Chapter Three addresses means of assessing infrastructure specifically in relation to FoM.
Freedom of Movement as a Condition and an Indicator of Success or Failure
This section ties together the concepts of FoM for COIN, the link between FoM and strategic
end state, and the link between FoM and strategic end state in Afghanistan. The purpose is to
identify a connection between FoM and assessment for the Afghanistan campaign and to present a theoretical foundation for the assessment of FoM in ISAF and its subordinate commands.
This report addresses all five types of FoM listed earlier in this chapter, but it takes a
particular interest in civilian FoM. While it is often impossible to truly isolate civilian FoM
from other types of FoM for assessment purposes, it is possible to be clear about how indicators might relate to civilian FoM, specifically, and to analyze how other forms of FoM do or
do not affect civilian FoM. Joint and service doctrine states that COIN is population-centric
and that the support of the people is the “most vital factor” in long-term success. But perhaps
more importantly for theater assessment groups in Afghanistan is the position articulated in
General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency guidance: “The decisive terrain is the human terrain.
The people are the center of gravity. Only by providing them security and earning their trust
and confidence can the Afghan government and ISAF prevail.”45 If popular security and support are the key to long-term success, then anything that builds sustainable popular security
and support should contribute to victory. Sustainable popular support can be achieved only
when the root causes of the insurgency have been addressed; temporary accommodations are
insufficient for sustainability.46 These root causes vary from place to place and over time. In
Afghanistan they may even vary from village to village. However, it is possible to draw some
broad assumptions about basic human requirements. The concepts behind the UN’s Universal
Declaration of Human Rights provide some insight into what these needs might be: freedom
to move from place to place without unreasonable restriction, fear, threat to physical security,
or undue economic burden. Therefore, where FoM exists, it might indicate the presence of
peace and security. By these basic hypothetical standards, if a significant or sufficient degree
of freedom to move exists in territories not under insurgent control, the counterinsurgent
should have made some progress toward sustainable victory.47 In some situations, civilian FoM
could be one of the pillars of success in a COIN campaign. Statements by ISAF officials presented earlier in this chapter reinforce this notion and seem to anchor civilian FoM to ISAF
end-state or terminating criteria.
44
While much of the literature on COIN and Afghanistan ties the lack of economic opportunity to the proclivity of civilians to join or support an insurgency, empirical evidence of these ties is contested.
45
Petraeus, 2010a.
46
A study of 89 post–World War II insurgencies showed that, in most cases, counterinsurgents gained lasting victory only
when root causes were addressed (Connable and Libicki, 2010, p. 164).
47
In this case, significant or sufficient could be considered a threshold qualifier for assessment.
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment
17
For assessment, it might be very difficult to link FoM with support for GIRoA. It might
be possible to have FoM as it is defined by ISAF and still not have a way to show how it has
directly affected the population’s support for the government. This is particularly true when
considering narrow aspects of FoM. For example, simply showing that there is more or less
movement on highways does not indicate more or less support for GIRoA; it is possible in some
circumstances to show correlation between these two variables but not defensible causation.
Indeed, an area completely controlled by insurgents (i.e., not contested by ISAF or ANSF)
might have good FoM; in the mid-1990s, improving travel on roads by removing roadblocks
and illegal shakedowns was one of the factors that made the Taliban an improvement (in the
eyes of many Afghans) over the warlords. While perception reporting can show popular sentiment, this sentiment can be misleading or fleeting. Some subject-matter experts debate the
often-stated official position that greater economic opportunity will necessarily reduce support
for insurgents and increase support for the government. For example, Andrew Wilder of Tufts
University, the former director of the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, has said,
“[A]s far as I can see, there’s very little evidence that poverty, or the lack of infrastructure and
health care in Afghanistan, are major causes of the conflict.”48 In general, more detailed
and contextual reporting on FoM will help assessment staffs tie FoM indicators to lasting support for GIRoA, to the extent that a relationship exists and can actually be established.
Civilian FoM could be considered a means to achieving strategic objectives, and the
degree to which civilian FoM is possible might be an end-state indicator or terminating criterion. Three of the other four types of FoM could be considered enabling conditions or enabling
indicators (insurgent FoM is a disabling condition or indicator), because they affect the ability
of the counterinsurgents to create civilian FoM. We summarize these roles as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Civilian FoM is a means to achieve strategic objectives.
ISAF and ANSF FoM is an enabling condition or indicator.
GIRoA FoM is an enabling condition or indicator.
NGO FoM is an enabling condition or indicator.
Insurgent FoM is a disabling condition or indicator.
For example, if government officials cannot get to work, the population will remain dissatisfied with services; if friendly military forces cannot enforce security because their movements are restricted, the population will not feel secure; if NGOs cannot get to remote areas
due to movement restrictions, people in these areas might be less satisfied with the government’s ability to support them. In other words, all types of FoM are intrinsically linked to the
others, and each of the three enabling conditions or indicators is likely to shape civilian FoM
for better or for worse.
The following sections discuss some of the challenges that assessment staffs will confront
as they attempt to address these issues. There are inherent contradictions between the theater
assessment process and the concept of FoM, and there are also conflicts between the various
types of FoM.
48
Quoted in McNeil, 2009.
18
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Scope, Scale, and the Interconnectedness of the Operating Environment
To assess FoM, it is necessary to consider why people need FoM, in what sectors they need it,
and to what degree they need it. Freedom to move can be defined and assessed through a wide
or narrow lens, or at a large or small scale. In other words, it can encompass a variety of different factors, and it can be viewed as a theater-wide condition or a local condition. A theater-wide
approach might ask the question, “Do Afghan civilians have FoM?” Or, “Do the Taliban and
other insurgent groups have FoM?” Assessment in this case would draw in technical reporting,
subordinate analysis, and raw data from across the country to feed comprehensive analysis,
thus providing a countrywide picture. Without context, however, these questions are very difficult to answer. The more localized conception would attempt to account for local conditions
and would involve a distributed, flat approach to FoM assessment that provides local context
not filtered by intermediate commands. There is a middle-ground option: Assess FoM on a
province-by-province or district-by-district basis for the purposes of centralized analysis. All
of these approaches have strengths and weaknesses, and any approach chosen for assessment
should reflect the realities of the COIN operating environment.
The following section describes additional issues and conditions related to scope, scale,
and interconnectedness that will affect assessment.
How Varying Conditions and Needs Shape Assessment
Theater staffs are already cognizant of the fact that there is no such thing as an “average”
Afghan civilian, and the heterogeneity of the Afghan population is particularly relevant to
FoM assessment. There are significant differences between the types of movement required by
urban poor, urban elite, rural farmers, rural traders, and international businesspeople conducting cross-border commerce. Even within a single rural village, individual Afghans or families
have differing needs, perceptions, and concerns. For example, one family might depend on
subsistence farming and need the freedom to travel only 500 meters to the local well, while
another family might depend on a cash crop that requires transportation to a regional market.
Thus, some Afghans have little or no need to travel, and others might only travel to a farmer’s
market infrequently but wholly depend on those few trips for survival. At some point, both
families might wish to visit relatives in a distant village, and any family might consider this
kind of travel either a necessity or a convenience. Any individual or group of civilians could
depend on several different types of FoM. For example, a successful car dealer in an urban
area—the kind of entrepreneur whom ISAF hopes to encourage and protect—might depend
on the following types of FoM to sustain his business:
• the ability to move from his home to his business
• freedom for his employees to move from their homes to his business, perhaps from different areas
• the transport of imported automobiles across the border from Pakistan and into the urban
area
• customers’ ability to visit his lot to buy cars, as well as customers’ perception that there is
sufficient FoM to warrant the purchase of a car
• ISAF or ANSF freedom to move to facilitate the freedom for civilians to move
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment
19
• government workers’ ability to move to their jobs so the car dealer can obtain permits and
conduct similar business49
• restrictions on insurgent FoM.
In this single case, an individual is affected by very local FoM concerns (Can he get to
work?), theater-level cross-border economic movement, and several different types of enabling
FoM conditions. Figure 2.4 shows the intricate and interconnected ways in which FoM is necessary to sustain even a single business, such as a car dealership in Afghanistan. It shows the
dealer who needs to be able to travel (at a minimum) to the dealership and to the government
office to obtain permits; the government workers who must be able to travel back and forth to
work; the employees who must be able to travel back and forth to the dealership; the customers
with the same need; ISAF and ANSF personnel who need to be able to circulate throughout
the area to ensure FoM for the dealer, employees, customers, and government workers; and the
insurgents who are attempting to disrupt various aspects of movement in the area. This depiction is stylized and simplified. In reality, the government employee could also be a customer
at the dealership; the dealer might need to travel to Pakistan to arrange for car shipments; the
dealer, some of the customers or employees, or the government workers might also be insurgents or insurgent supporters; and the insurgents might also be customers. In addition, this
Figure 2.4
Notional Freedom of Movement Requirements to Sustain a Car Dealership
Government
business office
Insurgents
Employee
Customer
Government
workers
Employee
ISAF/ANSF
base
Car
dealership
Car dealer
Customer
Customer
Employee
Insurgents
rder
-Pakistan bo
Afghanistan
Car delivery
driver
NOTE: Red indicates insurgents and insurgent movement; blue indicates ISAF/ANSF movement; dashed
blue lines indicate ISAF/ANSF efforts to block insurgents; green indicates GIRoA officials and GIRoA
movement; and gray indicates civilian movement.
RAND TR1014-2.4
49
This notional scenario assumes that a functional government office is present and that laws and regulations on car sales
exist and are followed. This was not necessarily a safe assumption in Afghanistan as of 2011.
20
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
depiction does not touch on the perception of FoM for any of the parties, which is as important
as the physical or actual aspects of FoM.
The same issues affect the way in which the assessment staff should perceive the other
categories of FoM. Some insurgent groups may be dependent on cross-border support, while
others may be self-sustaining in their local areas through taxation, criminal activity, or other
pursuits. Some ANSF units will require the ability to move over long distances to support outlying areas, while others may provide stationary security for key facilities. Some government
officials working in a district center may need to move only between their homes and their
offices, while others (e.g., a provincial governor) should be moving throughout the province to
visit outlying areas on a fairly regular basis.
Considering Scope, Scale, and Interconnectivity for Centralized Assessment
Issues of scope, scale, and interconnectivity tend to confound centralized metrics. Painting
FoM with a broad brush risks obscuring layers of context that might make the assessment
inaccurate or misleading: The subsistence farmer and the car dealer have very different needs.
Subordinate assessment of FoM down to the district or subdistrict level would provide context
and greater accuracy, but this kind of information is difficult to aggregate. This is particularly
true because subordinate assessments will necessarily contain varying types of information;
a unit in a relatively stable area providing transition assistance to ANSF and GIRoA might
focus on civilian FoM for economic development (to the extent that it is able to do so), while
a unit conducting clearing operations in a more violent area might focus on ANSF and insurgent FoM for security and stability (again, to the extent that it is possible to attain that level of
granularity). Aggregating these data might produce misleading and confusing results. Precluding units from carrying out assessments with a focus on what they need simply to improve the
aggregate data would be counterproductive. Similarly, reports from Kabul or Jalalabad will
differ in form and context from reports originating in southern Helmand Province or a rural
village in Nangarhar.
There is no simple solution to the challenges of scope, scale, and interconnectedness
posed by the complex COIN operating environment when conducting centralized assessment.
However, this report identifies hypothetical solutions to help assessment staffs cope with these
challenges.
Reality and Perception: The Two Sides of Freedom of Movement
This section examines two distinct aspects of FoM identified through research and existing
practice: the perception that FoM does or does not exist and the physical or “actual” ability
to move. The purpose of this section is to describe these two aspects of FoM in some depth to
help assessment analysts find the best way to understand FoM from a more holistic perspective.
Freedom can describe both a physical and a perceptual condition. It is possible to be physically free to move but simultaneously terrified to do so, or to be willing to move despite the
likelihood of incurring terrible risk. Therefore, assessment of FoM should capture and analyze
a mix of information on both perception and actual FoM and should determine how these two
aspects differ or are interdependent. But the complexity of FoM makes it difficult to define,
to select metrics, and to establish thresholds for centralized FoM assessment; it is probably not
possible to know how much FoM is necessary or sufficient for any given individual, from area
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment
21
to area, or over time. This means that establishing centralized time-series thresholds would be
particularly difficult. When centrally assessing civilian FoM, a theater-level assessment staff
should consider the following questions:
• How can perception information be captured in a way that reflects local conditions and
local needs, but in a format that can be aggregated?
• What are the various characteristics of physical threats, and how can information on
these threats be captured?
• What is the confluence between perception and actual FoM in a specific area and across
the theater? In other words, does perception match reality?
• How can perception data be compared with actual reporting data in a way that produces
an accurate, holistic picture of FoM?
Actual Restrictions on Movement
Both violent and nonviolent environmental conditions can restrict FoM. Actual violence results
in physical harm or undue economic hardship. For civilians, harm could manifest in intended
or unintended insurgent attacks (e.g., violent intimidation, victim-operated improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, intended for ISAF personnel), criminal activity (e.g., carjacking, kidnapping), or collateral violence from coalition-on-insurgent combat. Economic hardship could
manifest as insurgent taxation at informal checkpoints or unofficial taxation (corruption) at
government checkpoints. Violence can be generated by anyone at any time, and for the purposes of theater-level assessment, it is essentially unpredictable.50
Violence is not the only factor that might restrict actual movement. Physical infrastructure, weather, and geographic limitations can have an equally significant impact on all five
categories of FoM (civilian, ISAF/ANSF, government, NGO, and insurgent). Damage to roadways can prevent or slow the movement of people, animals, carts, and vehicles, and the lack of
sufficient roads, bridges, or even footpaths also affects actual FoM. Snow, rain, heat, cold, and
darkness all affect the actual ability to move from place to place at various times. According
to Jørgen Eriksen and Tormod Heier, seasonal snowfall is a significant impediment to Taliban
FoM because it disrupts the use of motorbikes, a preferred method of transportation.51 Distance, mountains, water features, and built-up terrain also impair the physical ability to move.
These factors can be affected by ISAF/GIRoA projects in some places (e.g., road and bridge
50
Some analysts have had success in predicting very localized attacks using large quantities of data on a specific geographic
area over time. However, this microlevel prediction is extremely time-consuming, requires high-quality data that are often
in short supply in the COIN environment, and is not broadly applicable at the theater level. Conversely, analysis of Afghanistan violence data shows that there is generally more violence in the summer and less in the winter. However, this gross
pattern is not necessarily predictive in any one year, nor can it be assumed to represent conditions in all areas at all times.
51
In their article “Winter as the Number One Enemy? Lessons Learned from North Afghanistan,” Eriksen and Heier
(2009, p. 67) elaborate on the importance of this factor:
The Taliban’s ability to sustain a high degree of mobility relies mainly upon motorbikes and other lightweight vehicles. This
approach is extremely flexible for swift and decisive off-road movements, particularly as operations are pursued along paths
and fragile tracks inaccessible to ISAF’s heavy armoured vehicles. These transport methods also provide insurgents with a
high operational tempo and a large amount of freedom of movement; factors often regarded as a prerequisite for surprise,
local dominance, and protection against ISAF’s rather static but overwhelming and accurate fire-power. Deep snow, however, severely breaks down the insurgents’ mobility concept, as tactical maneuvers take for granted customized roads and
accessible terrain. . . . [T]his may have a severe impact on insurgents’ relocation abilities and may impose a more static
and predictable pattern, rendering them more vulnerable.
22
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
building, repairs), while others are beyond human control (e.g., rain, distance when traveling
via a specific mode of transportation).
Before considering how actual restrictions on FoM might be assessed and affected, staffs
should determine which restrictions are within their power to affect and which should simply
be reported and analyzed.
Perceptual Restrictions on Movement
Now my children can walk safely and easily to school. The cars move faster and the drive is
smoother. Now it’s much easier for me to take my fruit and vegetables to the market. This
paved road is very good.
—Sultan Mohammad, Afghan civilian52
People—civilians, soldiers, government officers, aid workers, and insurgents—make decisions
based not only on what they see but also on what they believe to be true. Sometimes perceptions match reality, but in many cases, reality and perception are asynchronous. A civilian or soldier might believe that insurgents control a certain road when in fact they do not.
This belief—that insurgents control the road, in this example—also has an impact on FoM,
whether or not insurgents actually control the road and have seeded it with victim-operated
IEDs. Inversely, a civilian or soldier might believe that a road is safe, when, in fact, insurgents
had seeded it with IEDs. In this case, the perception of FoM is false and ultimately misleading
both for the individual affected and for anyone attempting to assess FoM.
Inaccurate perception can be costly to both individuals and the strategic objectives of the
counterinsurgent. Sometimes, inaccurate perceptions can generate actual costs. For example, a
person who believes that a road is closed may not travel or may take a circuitous route that is
more expensive in terms of time, fuel, and wear and tear on vehicles. This perception that the
road is closed might also lead to the belief that the government is incapable of providing security and economic opportunity, thereby reducing the perceived legitimacy of the government.
Inversely, this person could believe that a closed road is in fact open, so any effort to gauge
opinions of government legitimacy could reflect false impressions that would not survive the
first attempt to travel down the closed road.
Perception also affects the other FoM categories discussed earlier. For example, an ISAF
convoy commander might perceive that a certain road is dangerous at a certain time of day.
This belief might shape the convoy’s schedule and route. A district governor might believe that
a bridge has been repaired when in fact it has not and thus might waste valuable time attempting to travel to visit constituents in a distant village. An NGO worker might believe that his or
her organization has absolute FoM throughout a certain area when, in fact, insurgents are specifically targeting the group due to its affiliation with GIRoA. Insurgents might be cowed into
remaining immobile and inactive if they perceive that ANSF personnel have imposed effective
controls over routes in a specific area, even if this is not the case.
Assessing Perception and Actual Freedom of Movement Together
As discussed in greater detail in Chapter Three, ISAF tends to assess civilian perception of
FoM through polling. This is probably the most effective means of assessing perception, but it
52
USAID, undated(b).
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment
23
is also fraught with complications. Polling can be misleading because of the lag between the
collection and analysis of polling data. By the time relevant information reaches theater-level
assessment offices, much of it is already dated. More importantly for assessment, it is very difficult to link perception and actual FoM at the theater level using aggregated data. Barring
detailed, time-sensitive, all-source analysis or timely and contextual input from tactical units
or civilian agents, there is no way to tell whether a positive perception of FoM in a specific
district reflects actual conditions or whether the inability of the district’s population to move
goods to market in the following month will burst a bubble of positive perception. The difficulty of uniting perceived and actual FoM means that it might be unwise to consider polling
data a good proxy for actual conditions. The following section presents some additional considerations for FoM assessment.
Additional Considerations
Freedom of Movement Is Often Tentative
Both perception and reality can change rapidly and unexpectedly. A single IED attack in a
relatively secure area can reshape the population’s perception (people are no longer are willing
to travel to market along the main road) or ability to conduct commerce (people are no longer
able to travel to market along the main road because it has been cratered). Similarly, a successful coalition operation, the withdrawal of an insurgent element, a road construction program,
or an astute messaging campaign can rapidly reshape FoM for the better. FoM is always a
reversible condition. Both perception and reality can change in both directions, change rapidly,
and change often. Indicators can also lead (e.g., perception of FoM can drop in advance of a
major operation) or lag (e.g., people remain fearful of movement long after an area is secure, or
indicators do not emerge until well after a situation has changed).
The tentative nature of FoM is due not only to the unpredictable nature of violent acts
(e.g., attacks) or environmental conditions (e.g., a heavy snowdrift across a road) but also to the
fact that people in difficult circumstances (COIN) tend to find ways around man-made and
natural obstacles to meet their particular needs. Insurgents faced with aggressive ISAF/ANSF
checkpoint and route-control operations often find alternate routes or means of transportation.
An increase in inspection activities on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border might restrict insurgent movement to an extent, but insurgents might find that they can just as easily transport
personnel across informal border crossings on horseback. Military forces can bypass downed
bridges by bringing forward earth-moving equipment, government employees might bribe
their way through hostile checkpoints, and NGOs can negotiate with local leaders to improve
access to restricted areas.
Assessment staffs should pay close attention to the date of their information and consider
how obstacles to FoM for all categories might be bypassed.
Individual Cost-Benefit Analyses Guide Decisions to Move
Ideally, assessment of FoM reflects the willingness and ability of people to move from point
to point as well as actual movement to determine whether people are traveling when they
need to do so. Chapter Three shows that ISAF and some third-party groups have invested
in efforts to track physical movement along specific routes and at specific times to determine
whether actual movement has increased or decreased. Actual movement is often conflated with
24
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
increased FoM and extrapolated to show increased government legitimacy. But willingness,
ability, and actual movement potentially have separate values: People might move even when
they are afraid, so movement does not necessarily reflect popular support for the government
or insurgents (i.e., movement alone does not indicate popular support for anyone by anyone).
Individual civilians will make a cost-benefit analysis regarding movement: They will determine
for themselves whether the potential risk of movement from point to point outweighs the benefit of moving, and, if necessary, they will overcome perceptual or actual obstacles. A farmer
whose family depends on the sale of a harvested wheat crop might knowingly risk lives to move
a crop to market, and someone desperate to obtain medical treatment will find a way around
an IED crater or a downed bridge. People sometimes decide to accept physical or economic risk
for emotional rather than logical reasons. Religious fatalism may overcome fear, or someone
accustomed to years of violence may simply accept that life is dangerous (this is particularly
relevant in Afghanistan). Conversely, irrational fear can prevent movement even when a person
believes and knows that it is safe to move. In war, and particularly in war-torn Afghanistan, it
is not wise to assume that Western interpretations of rational cost-benefit analysis and behavior
apply when assessing FoM.
It is possible to consider the factors that would go into individual or even group costbenefit analyses for movement, including the following, among others:
•
•
•
•
reason for travel
perception of danger or hardship associated with travel
importance of the reason for travel relative to the perception of danger or hardship
subjective factors that might overcome the perception that danger or hardship objectively
outweighs the reason for travel (e.g., religious fatalism, family commitment)
• financial cost of travel weighed against the ability to bear the cost, influenced by subjective factors.
Inherent Theoretical and Practical Contradictions
COIN tactics and the COIN operating environment present other inherent contradictions
that further confound assessment of FoM. This section is by no means comprehensive in that
it does not present all possible contradictions, but it does introduce two issues that will demand
consideration by the assessment staff.
Increasing Freedom of Movement for Civilians Also Helps Insurgents
Increasing FoM for civilians will necessarily increase FoM for insurgents (as well as criminals)
because insurgents in Afghanistan typically do not wear uniforms, and they live among the
population. Therefore, these two types of FoM—civilian and insurgent—are closely linked
in a way that is not necessarily conducive to coalition objectives. Building a new road might
improve civilian access to markets, but it also improves insurgent access to targets (or poppy
and illicit gem markets). Conversely, setting up government checkpoints may reduce insurgent
FoM, but it would also reduce civilian FoM (though it may only inconvenience civilians who
are not insurgents while the consequences may be much worse for those who are). There is also
potential conflict between the other types of FoM. For instance, increasing ISAF and GIRoA
FoM might lead to an increased presence of heavy military convoy traffic on main roads. This
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment
25
might, in turn, encourage insurgent attacks along these roads, reducing civilian perceptions of
FoM. At the very least, the convoy traffic might slow movement or raise civilian anxiety levels.
Government officials and NGOs are similarly caught in the middle.
Freedom of Movement for Civilians Is Not Always Desirable
Although this report shows that civilian FoM may be a reasonable end-state criterion, FoM
for civilians is not always desirable during a COIN campaign. Both historical case studies and
recent experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan show that it is often necessary to restrict the
movement of the population to reduce the influence of insurgents in a particular area. U.S.
doctrine reflects these lessons. FM 3-24 recommends the application of population-control
measures during the “build” phase of operations, such as checkpoints, curfews, pass systems,
limits on extended travel, and limits on visitors to the controlled area.53 The manual describes
U.S. COIN operations in Tal Afar, Iraq, designed to physically control the movement of people
and goods into and out of the city.54 In this case, the coalition purposefully restricted the FoM
of the citizens. Perceptions of FoM probably suffered in the short term, but in the long term,
the degree of security established through the implementation of control measures allowed for
greater and more sustainable FoM.
Figure 2.5 shows how population-control measures in response to threat levels can determine FoM. In areas with poor security, it may be necessary to control the population and thus
Figure 2.5
Freedom of Movement and Population Control: Possible Scale to
Threat Level
Co
nt
ISAF asserts control or facilitates freedom
Less control/
more freedom
ro
li
nc
re
as
es
w
ith
m
or
e
in
se
cu
rit
y,
d
ec
re
as
es
w
ith
m
or
e
se
cu
rit
y
More control/
less freedom
Security
Insecurity
Conditions are more or less secure
RAND TR1014-2.5
53
HQDA, 2006c, p. 5-21.
54
HQDA, 2006c, pp. 5-22–5-23.
26
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
reduce FoM, but as security improves, it may be possible to reduce controls and increase FoM.
This is a notional depiction intended to show how control might scale to threat in COIN; it
does not reflect plotted data. It is derived from an analysis of COIN case studies and COIN
doctrine.
The figure suggests that any effort to assess civilian FoM using centralized assessment will
show periodic decreases and subsequent increases in countrywide FoM as a result of purposeful
ISAF and ANSF operations. As units conduct clear-and-hold operations, FoM may decrease in
that specific area, and as they shift to build and transition in these areas, FoM may increase.
For example, while ISAF and GIRoA forces are successfully improving FoM in RC North and
RC West, they might simultaneously and purposefully reduce FoM in the south and east to
inhibit insurgent FoM and to separate the population from the insurgents. In this case, theater
analysis of FoM across all RCs will reflect both the increase and purposeful decrease of civilian
FoM, showing mixed results—or perhaps negative results, depending on previous conditions
in the south and east—in time-series analyses. These changes in value may be practically distinct from any impact that insurgents or economic development might have, but separating
and identifying correlation at the theater level might be difficult. This dynamic illustrates that,
devoid of context, FoM cannot be taken as a good or bad condition.
Further, shifts in perception and actual FoM in areas undergoing active ISAF/ANSF
movement-control operations might lead to fluctuations in theater-level perceptions and actual
movement reports. Because theater-level metrics are aggregated, it would be necessary for
theater-level assessment groups to (1) understand that these operations are causing a reduction in perceived and actual FoM in this area, (2) know that this reduction is reflected in the
reporting of the aggregated statistics, and (3) explain this aberration in the theater assessment
report. Barring extensive and in-depth analysis by assessment groups, and in the absence of
tight coordination between assessment officers and operations officers, it might be very difficult to meet these three standards. As a result, theater-level assessment reports on FoM might
reflect a temporary or extended drop in FoM due to intentional restrictions in the same metric
that reveals reductions in FoM due to violence or environmental restrictions. This is an inherent risk in the centralized assessment of aggregated data, and it serves as reminder that absolute
metrics devoid of context may be more harmful than helpful.
Freedom of Movement Can Exist Where Insurgents Have Control
It is also possible to receive positive indications of both perceptual and actual FoM for civilians
who live in an area controlled by insurgents. Civilians living in a Taliban (or other group’s)
internal safe haven might be perfectly content with their ability to move to and from a market
or a relative’s home, and there may be very few actual restrictions on their ability to do so. In
fact, road safety is one benefit that many Afghans believe the Taliban can provide and GIRoA
cannot. Indeed, making the roads safe was the first thing the Taliban did in Kandahar in 1994
on its rise to power. But in this case, positive indicators of FoM (say, a poll and an imagery
analysis of roadways in the area) actually indicate a lack of progress toward the objective of sustainable government legitimacy. If not correctly identified and analyzed, these results could be
misleading. Some safe havens are not clearly identified as such or are controlled without overt
presence. Therefore, it may not be easy to isolate areas of insurgent control in a holistic FoM
assessment, and positive trend reports might hide negative conditions.
how the Concept of Freedom of Movement Can Inform Assessment
27
Summary of Analysis
FoM is a complex concept that has been poorly defined and insufficiently translated into practical guidance. Theater assessment staffs in Afghanistan have few resources to guide their
conceptual planning or to help them collect and analyze information that might help them
explain FoM to the ISAF commander or senior policymakers. However, despite this lack of
clear guidance, both military and civilian leaders from the policymaker to the tactical operator
level have identified a number of clear concepts and objectives for FoM in Afghanistan. They
place a strong emphasis on improving FoM for civilians and reducing FoM for insurgents.
These objectives are typically linked to the belief that FoM is a human right and a means for
economic development and that improving FoM will improve the lives of Afghans to the point
that they will not want to join or support the insurgency. Whether or not these assumptions
are valid, they provide at least a framework for campaign assessment.
These assumptions and associated operations do not, however, provide a clear and direct
connection between improved civilian FoM, reduced insurgent FoM, and campaign end-state
(or terminating) criteria that might be assessed by a theater assessment staff. Nor do these
assumptions reflect the complexities or inherent contradictions of FoM. There has been insufficient effort to determine how perception and actual FoM are linked, how they might be correlated for assessment, or how some of the other factors identified during the research for this
report might affect FoM assessment:
• There are at least five categories of FoM, each of which may complement or confound the
other.55 These categories are distinct but not necessarily independent.
• Issues of scope and scale will make it difficult to collect information that accurately
reflects FoM for civilians and insurgents across an entire theater; context matters.
• The fluidity of the COIN environment means that both the perception and reality of
FoM can and will change often, quickly, and unexpectedly. Reporting will contain leading and lagging indicators and may not reflect ground truth by the time it is assessed.
• To assess FoM, it is necessary to measure both perception and reality, because perception
might not match reality and reality might not match perception. Willingness to move,
the ability to move, and actual movement might be considered as three separate variables
or values in an assessment. It is possible to see actual movement coupled with a widespread perception that it is unsafe to move.
• The convergence of purposeful coalition reduction of FoM and reports of high levels of
FoM in insurgent havens can play tricks on time-series assessments of FoM indicators. It
would be conceivable for an insurgent-held or -influenced area with high levels of FoM to
see a drop in FoM as coalition forces clear and stabilize the area, and then a subsequent
increase in FoM after the operation.
• Civilian FoM is not always desirable; in some cases, it is necessary to restrict FoM
(an important element of population control) while retaining the goal of improving overall FoM at the strategic level. Efforts to restrict FoM will shape reporting and assessments
and must be carefully monitored.
55
ISAF’s Afghan Assessment Group could also determine that one or more of these categories should be eliminated or
combined. For example, it may view the NGO category as extraneous. It is listed here because it is mentioned fairly frequently in the literature and it seems to affect COIN outcomes. Other categories not considered in this report might also
be useful for operations and assessment.
28
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
• It is possible to have a high degree of civilian FoM in insurgent-held areas: Civilians
can be happy with FoM in a way that does not support ISAF or Inteqal objectives. It is
not easy—and in many cases not possible—to identify differences between civilians and
insurgents for the purposes of FoM assessment.
• Increasing FoM for civilians may also increase FoM for insurgents and criminals:
Improving infrastructure, reducing roadblocks, and taking other steps to improve civilian FoM may improve insurgent FoM because Afghan insurgents tend to blend in with
the population.
• Efforts to gather more information can unduly burden subordinate commands, but a lack
of data undermines centralized assessment. Finding an effective, structured approach to
FoM assessment will require some cost-benefit analysis and a balance between context
and aggregation, as well as a collaborative risk assessment with subordinate commands.
With these considerations in mind, some initial findings emerged from the analysis of the
FoM concept that might assist ISAF in developing a comprehensive approach to FoM assessment. The linkage between what is perceived to be an adequate and sustainable level of civilian
FoM and subsequent support from the government toward this end is tenuous at best. However, fostering FoM in government-controlled areas may influence Afghan civilians to support
the government because increased FoM may give them faith in the ability of the security services to protect them from physical and economic harm. Assessing the relationship between
the existence of FoM, indicators of popular satisfaction with FoM, and real, sustainable support for the government will require comprehensive and contextual analysis of a number of
different variables.56
This analysis of the FoM concept is intended to provide an overview of key issues and to
frame possible best practices for assessment. Chapter Three examines past and current efforts
to assess FoM, and Chapter Four provides recommendations derived from holistic analysis and
analysis of practice.
56
In such areas, insurgent presence is negligible, so competition between the insurgency and the government is not as
relevant as in contested areas. In this case, the ability or lack of ability to provide services and secure movement is likely to
more clearly correspond with government popularity. However, ascribing a clear correlation between any two variables in
COIN is challenging even in areas of strong government control.
ChApter three
Analysis of Past and Current Theory and Practice
We’ve deemed freedom of movement almost too difficult to really measure.
—Assessment analyst, Afghanistan, 20111
The purpose of this chapter is to show what has been done to address FoM by counterinsurgents
in historic cases, by a range of staffs in ISAF, and by third-party organizations in Afghanistan.
The goal is to identify those efforts that worked or provided some insight and those that did
not work. Because military and third-party assessments have considered some or many of the
issues raised earlier in this report, this chapter necessarily revisits some of these points in the
context of actual assessment. To examine past and current practice, we also explore the ways
in which FoM has been incorporated into theater assessment, efforts to develop proxy metrics
to assess FoM, survey structure for both official and third-party surveys designed to capture
perception data on FoM, and ways in which unofficial or third-party reports have attempted
to capture FoM for collection and analysis. All the efforts to capture and assess FoM were
undertaken by staffs in the middle of an ongoing COIN campaign. Staff officers tasked with
developing these approaches and tools often had very little to work with in terms of precedent
or guidance, so they made do with what they had.
Historical Examples
To inform FoM assessment in Afghanistan, it is helpful to briefly look at historical examples
that show how FoM was perceived in past COIN operations and assessments. From Iraq and
Northern Ireland, it is clear that efforts to control movement—and thus restrict FoM for a
time—were instrumental in reducing violence to a manageable level.2 However, it is also clear
from Iraq, and increasingly from Afghanistan, that once security reaches a manageable level, a
return to “normal” life (or the establishment of a normal life) benefits typical COIN end-state
objectives. The desire for normalcy was reflected in Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s
demands that blast walls and other efforts to restrict movement in Baghdad be dismantled
even before security was adequately controlled. Together, these observations demonstrate that
FoM plays a role in both security (restricting it) and development and social activity (enhanc-
1
Assessment analyst, email to the authors, February 16, 2011.
2
Observations on Iraq are from Terrence Kelly based on his time as director of Baghdad Embassy’s Joint Strategic Planning and Assessment Office. Observations on Belfast are derived from interviews with British officers who served there
(2006–2007).
29
30
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
ing it). This makes the assessment staff’s job of defining and applying assessment methodologies difficult.
A Survey of Freedom of Movement in Foreign Counterinsurgency Cases
Historical examples of efforts to improve FoM for security and government forces in non-U.S.
COIN operations are plentiful, and the literature shows that security-related FoM considerations were often integral to campaigns. Success for the British in Malaya was due in no small
part to efforts to relocate and isolate large segments of the population from the insurgents, but
it also depended in part on road construction projects that improved FoM for COIN forces.3
British and Thai forces replicated this effort during counterguerrilla operations along the ThaiLaotian border in the late 1960s.4 In these cases, road improvement gave the counterinsurgents greater FoM, which, in turn, allowed them to exert greater control over the hinterlands.
This kind of mobility has proved particularly useful against rural insurgencies, which tend to
depend on isolated base areas and internal sanctuaries during the early and middle stages of an
insurgency. One would have to assume that these road improvements also increased FoM for
civilians and insurgents, but most COIN operations present such trade-offs.
Tactics designed to restrict civilian FoM that might work in one campaign (e.g., Malaya)
are not necessarily generalizable to another. Previous RAND research on insurgency endings
has shown that each COIN campaign requires tailored operations not only to match available resources but also to address the particular root causes of the conflict.5 While the ethnic
Chinese Malay population accepted the British relocation and isolation strategy, the
ethnic Mizo population in northeast India reacted negatively to Indian Army efforts to resettle
the population and restrict its FoM to undermine an ethnic Mizo insurgency. This relocation,
handled with far less aplomb than the British relocation of the Malay, “reinforced [the insurgent] narrative about India’s desire to destroy the Mizo way of life, allowed the insurgents and
their sympathizers to accuse India of human rights atrocities, and harmed the ability of the
Indian security forces to gather useful intelligence about the insurgency from an alienated and
resentful population.”6
In many cases, counterinsurgents implemented some sort of barrier system to restrict
FoM, either for civilians with the intent of separating them from the insurgents or, specifically, to channelize or prevent insurgent movement. The Moroccan Royal Armed Forces faced
difficulty in reducing the FoM of Polisario insurgents across the western Sahara desert in the
late 1970s. Instead of attempting to exert control through force, the military built a series of
large walls that “significantly blunted Polisario’s guerrilla and mobile-conventional operations
because insurgent units seeking to circumvent or attack them were relatively easy to detect
in the open terrain.”7 An examination of 14 insurgency cases in which physical barriers were
employed showed that the use of barriers by counterinsurgents correlated equally with government victory and defeat.8
3
Clutterbuck, 1977, pp. 52–53.
4
Clutterbuck, 1977, pp. 55–57.
5
Connable and Libicki, 2010, pp. 151–156.
6
Chadha, 2009, p. 39.
7
O’Neill, 1990, p. 133.
8
Connable and Libicki, 2010, p. 184.
Analysis of past and Current theory and practice
31
A detailed case-study approach to FoM might reveal a dedicated and comprehensive
effort to draw a link between increasing civilian FoM and COIN strategic end states in these
non-U.S. cases, and it might also reveal efforts to assess FoM within a campaign assessment
framework. However, an examination of commonly referenced COIN material did not reveal
either type of effort in the cases mentioned here or in others, such as the Peruvian campaign
against the Shining Path, British campaigns against the Irish Republican Army, French campaigns against the Algerian insurgency, Soviet and Cuban campaigns against Angolan insurgents, or the Egyptian campaign against Yemeni royalists.
Freedom of Movement in Vietnam
During the Vietnam War, the United States and its South Vietnamese (Government of Vietnam, or GVN) allies and the North Vietnamese valued FoM in ways that shaped their respective strategies. U.S. attrition strategy in Vietnam depended in great part on the ability to
reduce the movement of insurgent personnel and supplies from the north to the south. Bombing campaigns were specifically tailored to target movement routes, marshalling areas, rail
yards, and other transportation hubs in North Vietnam and neighboring countries. These
attacks were assessed in a number of formats, including top-level official reports by the commanding general of U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam. One such report stated that
U.S. Air Force objectives in Vietnam included the limitation of FoM for the enemy and listed
the amount of firepower used in these various missions.9 Assessment of U.S. efforts to restrict
insurgent or conventional military movement was typically carried out with these types of
input metrics or by monitoring estimates of destroyed enemy vehicles. Other assessment efforts
relied on estimates of enemy movement or area control. For example, a U.S. Embassy cable on
campaign assessment stated that one of the signs of success in the war was the reduction in the
miles of roadway controlled by the enemy.10
U.S. and GVN strategy also relied on the ability to move from place to place as an
enabling condition or objective. Assessment reports described improvements to transportation
networks and increased FoM. For example, according to one report,
During July, 540 feet of new bridging were complete while 1,350 feet were repaired or
upgraded. During July, 132 kilometers of highway were repaired which facilitates the movement of military and civil traffic. In addition to road improvements, emphasis is continuing
on expanding and improving air transport.11
Some assessment reports detailed which routes were open, closed, or restricted across
the country.12 These reports were detailed and extensive, but they often failed to explain why
any one route was more or less important to U.S. operations or strategy. Figure 3.1 shows the
Vietnamese National Railway System in South Vietnam in 1967, including rail lines that were
open, scheduled to be restored, or inoperative and not scheduled for restoration. The map is an
example of a typical FoM assessment product during the Vietnam War.
9
Westmoreland, 1967b, pp. 14–15.
10
U.S. Embassy, Saigon, Vietnam, 1967. How this was measured is unclear. In all likelihood, the number represented a
vaguely substantiated estimate.
11
U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, 1967, pp. 2–3.
12
Westmoreland, 1967b, p. 12.
32
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Figure 3.1
Assessment of South Vietnam’s Railway System
Dong Ha
HUE
Lien Chieu
Da Nang
Ba Ren
An Hoa
Quang Ngai
Vietnamese National
Railway System
Bong Son
Phu Cat
Dieu Tri
Open
Restoration scheduled
by calendar year 1968
Restoration not
scheduled
Qui Nhon
Tang Vinh
Chi Thanh
Tuy Hoa
Ninh Hoa
Nga Ba
Ba Ngoi
Dalat
Thap Cham
Loc Ninh
Thu Dau Mot
Muong Man
Phan Thiet
Xuan Loc
Saigon
SOURCE: Thayer, 1975b, p. 8.
RAND TR1014-3.1
U.S. assessment analysis also focused on dissecting Viet Cong efforts to restrict U.S.,
GVN, and civilian FoM in South Vietnam. A series of reports by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, published in the 12-part anthology A Systems Analysis View of the Vietnam
War, capture the most concerted assessment efforts during the latter stages of the conflict.
Volume 5 of the collection contains a detailed assessment of U.S. air operations, including
anticipated effects on enemy FoM. One report in Volume 10 addresses Viet Cong efforts to
interdict traffic along Route 4 in the southernmost sector in South Vietnam. It also describes
the economic significance of the route to the GVN and to the COIN campaign. For example,
it notes, “The bulk of foodstuffs produced in the [Mekong] Delta are shipped to Saigon by this
highway.” The report determined that FoM along this route was critical to the success of the
campaign, at least in terms of interim objectives. It then presents an analysis of captured Viet
Cong documents showing the intent to interdict the route and correlates these documents with
an analysis of attack incidents along the route over a specific period.13
13
See, e.g., Thayer, 1975a, 1975b.
Analysis of past and Current theory and practice
33
General Vo Nguyen Giap, commander in chief of the Army of the Democratic Republic of
Vietnam, described the North Vietnamese strategy against France and later against the United
States as “mobile war.”14 Mirroring other communist guerrilla warfare doctrine, General Giap
made it clear that FoM was a critical requirement for the success of his operations in the early
and middle stages of the war. This requirement is reflected in captured documents that showed a
tactical emphasis on FoM. The North Vietnamese army also emphasized FoM as a basic human
right, particularly after the 1973 peace agreement with the United States and GVN. The Paris
Peace Accords that were intended to end the war codified FoM as a “democratic liberty of the
people.”15 The North Vietnamese attempted to take advantage of the accord to undermine the
legitimacy of the GVN and possibly to improve FoM for the remnants of the guerrilla forces
operating in the south. One radio propaganda message stated that “this administration has prohibited all democratic liberties as provided for by the agreement, such as freedom of movement.”16
Most U.S. assessment of FoM in Vietnam seems to have focused on operational mobility for friendly and enemy forces. There have been few efforts to link civilian FoM to strategic
end-state objectives or to identify FoM as a basic human right. As pacification programs accelerated in the late 1960s, so did analysis of civilian FoM. However, these analyses were often
conducted at the tactical level and typically were not incorporated into holistic theater assessment in any meaningful way.
Freedom of Movement in Afghanistan Theater Assessment Frameworks
ISAF and IJC have made several efforts to incorporate FoM into assessments in Afghanistan.
For example, IJC has written an order describing FoM and FoM assessment, and the ISAF
Freedom of Movement Working Group developed a spreadsheet of metrics designed to capture FoM information.17 The Center for Army Analysis conducted a review of FoM assessment
methods, and the district assessment process at IJC accounts for both civilian FoM and insurgent FoM.18 The District Assessment Framework required subordinate RCs to provide input
to address the requirement to “improve freedom of movement in order to increase commercial
activity.”19 RC East also created an assessment management tool (the District Stability Assessment Tool) to shape the command’s assessments, and it required personnel to provide information on civilian FoM for economic measures as well as information on insurgent FoM. Early
iterations of IJC district assessment efforts did not necessarily provide a clear understanding
of what FoM was or why data should be collected to address and explain it. Throughout 2010,
the various efforts to assess FoM in Afghanistan at the ISAF, IJC, and RC levels were ad hoc
in that they were developed without specific doctrinal or command guidance.20
14
Giap, 1961/2001, especially p. 49.
15
Paris Peace Accords, 1973, Article 11.
16
Democratic Republic of Vietnam, 1973b, p. K14. This message was replicated in a number of other recorded broadcasts
in 1973.
17
Further details are included in the classified annex to this report.
18
ISAF Joint Command, 2010a.
19
ISAF Regional Command East, 2010.
20
The Measuring Progress in Conflict Environments protocol developed by the United States Institute of Peace includes
some FoM indicators, but they are not explained in detail and they address a relatively narrow aspect of FoM (violence
between identity groups). See Dziedzic, Sotirin, and Agoglia, 2008, p. 26.
34
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
The ad hoc nature of the FoM definitions, collection requirements, and assessment methods meant that RCs had considerable leeway to design and implement their own FoM collection and reporting processes. In the case of district assessments, they were instructed to assess
FoM in a single category. In some ways, this approach was beneficial: At the very least, it
improved the context of the reporting provided to IJC and then ISAF. However, it also made
it more difficult for assessment staffs in Kabul to determine what FoM reporting actually
indicated from area to area. The dependence on ad hoc and generalized definitions produced
by various staffs in Afghanistan meant that different units down to the battalion level could
interpret FoM differently. Because there was no clear understanding of what FoM meant or
why it was critical to strategic success, there were probably varying levels of effort and resources
dedicated to FoM collection from unit to unit.
The remainder of this chapter addresses some of these efforts, beginning with an examination of the ways in which staffs have attempted to collect data to feed both physical and
perception assessment.
Technical and Manual Collection of Physical Movement Data
Technical collection efforts are designed to capture information that can be observed, while
perception collection efforts capture information that must be reported voluntarily.21 Technical collection might be used to determine either actual or perception aspects of FoM. In
practice, technical collection is often used to simply describe “freedom of movement” in a
way that would seem to encompass both perception and actual FoM. This section refers to the
collection efforts of a specific RC staff.22 In 2010, this staff developed a set of technical collection processes for internal use to determine FoM in its area of operations using the following
techniques:
• analysis of overhead imagery from 2002 and 2010 to identify population centers that
were expanding and thus were believed to be thriving economically
• analysis of the same imagery to count the number of car dealerships in the RC’s area of
operations, coupled with atmospherics reporting from the dealers to determine the sales
climate—the better the sales, the better the FoM for civilians
• “clicker counts” of cars that passed ISAF checkpoints using any of a variety of available
counting devices to show rate of traffic, means of travel (and types of vehicles), and times
of travel; the staff also counted parked cars through various means for the same purpose.
These efforts produced some useful contextual analysis for the RC, but there are strengths
and limitations inherent in each of these techniques. Imagery analysis showing the growth
of population centers might indicate that civilians are free to move about, but this is, at best,
a proxy metric in the absence of actual population and economic indicators. While it seems
logical that population growth requires FoM, it is not clear that these two variables (popula21
In this context the term technical is not intended to be conflated with an intelligence collection methodology definition
for technical intelligence collection, or TECHINT. Instead it is intended as a broad descriptor.
22
Information for this section was obtained from a January 2011 interview of a military officer who had served on an RC
staff in Afghanistan.
Analysis of past and Current theory and practice
35
tion growth and FoM) are correlated in a way that is generalizable, or that they are sufficiently
linked for the purposes of theater assessment. Counting car dealers is another imaginative
proxy metric, and it also seems logical that more car dealers means more movement.
At best, though, these approaches show that there is some or “more” movement for an
undisclosed group: Insurgents, criminals, and corrupt officials are often involved in automobile imports and sales. While more car purchases may reflect confidence in the economy and
in the ability to move, it cannot be assumed to be an unvarnished “good” in terms of assessment and campaign end state. Economically disadvantaged Afghans may not have the ability
to purchase a car, so car sales may not tell the assessment staff much about the largest segment
of the population (or may tell only a little bit about one or two segments). A great deal of additional contextual detail would be needed to show that more car sales were, in fact, an indicator
of increased FoM. However, depending on how FoM is defined and how assessment of FoM
is framed, a staff could simply construe more economic activity as a proxy metric for greater
civilian FoM. From this point, the staff might extrapolate the increase in economic activity to
show that it indicates an increase in government legitimacy and a reduction in antigovernment
motivations. This appears to be the process undertaken by this particular RC staff. The use of
proxy metrics and the extrapolation of COIN data are commonplace in assessment, but these
techniques carry clear risk in terms of establishing validity.
Traffic Volume Collection, Reporting, and Assessment
Research for this report uncovered one effort by an RC staff to conduct a traffic volume analysis using “clicker counts” of passing traffic; other attempts may have been made elsewhere.
Traffic volume studies or clicker counts are common practice around the world. Taking clicker
counts of passing cars is perhaps the most methodical and persistent way to capture physical
movement, but it is fraught with complications. Counting passing vehicles along a specific
route can show how many vehicles are moving over that route during the period of collection, and samples might be extrapolated for broader interpretation. In general, it would not
be safe to say that more vehicles moving over any given route over time is a clear indication of
increased FoM for any group, or of increased support for GIRoA.
There are a number of available technical means to capture the physical movement of
vehicles or people. These devices are in common use in urban and rural areas around the
world, and counting equipment can be quite refined and sophisticated. Some cutting-edge
computer-aided equipment can both count vehicles and automatically differentiate between
vehicle types, but most systems only identify vehicles as single units or by axle count. Most
automated systems require the physical recovery of data from the device. All click-counting
hardware and software is commercially available, off-the-shelf, and could be easily obtained by
ISAF or a subordinate command.
A survey of available commercial counting devices revealed five different categories of
counters. Research for this report did not include a hands-on examination of these devices,
so it is not possible to rate the efficacy of any one device over another in field conditions in
Afghanistan. The five categories of devices are as follows:23
23
See Advanced Traffic Analysis Center, 2002, and D. Smith, 2002, for additional information on devices and their efficacy, as well as detailed descriptions of traffic volume collection techniques.
36
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
1. Inductive burial loop counters: Two boxes are connected by a linear magnetic detector to count vehicle volume; battery-powered; can be built in under poured concrete or
asphalt; tamper-resistant counter.
2. Radar-based counters: A single, small sensor uses reflected energy to count vehicle
volume; approximate 25- to 30-foot range; most models require continuous power;
tamper-resistant counter.
3. Pressure hose counters: A counter box and data-logging box are connected to a pneumatic hose that counts axles; battery-powered; surface-laid; tamper-resistant counter.
4. Passive infrared sensors: Units consist of a sensor and receiver; inexpensive, but not as
durable as other counters; 50-foot range or shorter fan-shaped range; battery-powered.
5. Hand-held counters: Single device, either mechanical or battery-powered, requires
human input; some versions are weather-resistant and durable.
At least in the U.S. government, traffic volume analysis typically relies on four complementary types of data collection: limited continuous counts, control or seasonal counts, extensive coverage counts, and flexible special needs counts.24 Continuous counts are 24-hour collection efforts that require the placement of persistent, weather-resistant counting devices, such
as an inductive burial loop counter. The number of these continuous efforts is probably limited
by cost and maintenance concerns. Control or seasonal counts are taken periodically to help
account for seasonal traffic pattern changes in annual data sets, or to improve the accuracy of
annual counts. Coverage counts are short in duration, from 24 hours to one week, and help
assess areas not covered by continuous count collection points. Flexible special needs counts
are designed to address specific requirements from agencies other than transportation departments. For the purposes of Afghanistan FoM assessment, probably only the first three types of
counts are relevant.
These counts produce data that can then be superimposed on mapping or imagery products. Figure 3.2 is an example taken from a North Carolina Department of Transportation
study of road traffic in Raleigh in 2009. It shows the estimated annual counts at specific points
along designated route sections.
Technical collection of data on traffic patterns requires not only forethought but also
planning and structured design. The Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Volume Guide
(2001) and Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual (2010) provide clear and
specific instructions that a military staff could use to construct a traffic volume measurement
process for Afghanistan. Some technical and procedural expertise may be required to implement a successful program: Traffic volume analysis entails physical collection as well as scientific design and analysis. If ISAF implements a traffic volume program for FoM, staffs should
not necessarily compare the data with or rely on recommendations derived from studies of U.S.
traffic patterns in their assessment of Afghan traffic patterns. For example, the recommended
monitoring periods and the degree of error percentage between periodic and annual traffic
counts in the United States may not reflect similar conditions in Afghanistan.25
24
Federal Highway Administration, 2001, p. 3-6.
25
See Federal Highway Administration, 2001, pp. 3-10–3-11.
Analysis of past and Current theory and practice
37
Figure 3.2
Example of a Traffic Volume Mapping Product
SOURCE: North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2009.
NOTE: The numbers and arrows indicate average annual traffic as recorded by automated
click-counting devices.
RAND TR1014-3.2
Counts can still be useful for specific contextual assessment, but they are limited in some
ways:
• Barring the hiring of Afghan contractors to conduct clicker counts or retrieve data, counts
can only cover areas where there is at least periodic ISAF (or ANSF) presence. Yet civilians, insurgents, NGOs, and even GIRoA officials might avoid routes that pass by ISAF
bases or checkpoints. Alternatively, in some cases, civilians might prefer to travel on roads
covered by ISAF or ANSF, a behavior that would also skew collection.
• It is not clear that a sufficient sample size could be obtained to deliver meaningful results
as long as the security situation is unstable.
• It is impossible to know who is in the passing vehicles, why they are moving, where they
are coming from, or where they are going. They could be moving goods to market or
bypassing other routes that have been cut off by insurgent checkpoints or road craters.
More movement on one route might (or might not) indicate less movement on other
routes.
• This technique tends to focus on movement between areas and not necessarily movement
within areas; each count is contextual to the location of the base or patrol base and might
mean something different in a different context. Counts of traffic along a major highway
would differ from those on a busy local dirt road where the same people move back and
forth several times in one day. Technical means could be used to count intravillage movement if resources were available.
38
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
• Counts would have to be carefully tied to other indicators, including seasonal indicators
(e.g., there might be more movement at harvest time and less in winter).26
• Any device not under constant observation by ISAF or ANSF might also present insurgents with an opportunity to transform the device into an IED detonator.27
• Local Afghans are likely to notice the emplacement of sensors and may avoid them because
they do not know what they are (thereby throwing off the movement count), take them to
sell on the market or deliver to insurgents, or tamper with them out of curiosity in a way
that might damage or destroy the sensors.
With appropriate software, cameras could also be used to observe roadways and count
vehicles. Some cameras are in use in Afghanistan, but coverage is limited, and the manpower
requirements to track and analyze camera feeds can be significant. The viability of electrooptical collection would have to be determined by the ISAF staff. Electronic click-counting
would have the same limitations for assessment as manual click-counting (e.g., barriers to
coverage).
Perhaps the greatest limitation in traffic volume counts is the degree to which volatility
in Afghanistan due to the security situation and internal population displacement affects the
ability to extrapolate coverage counts to larger areas or over time. Annual counts for specific
areas are typically determined by applying formulas that extrapolate periodic counts in a given
location. In the example depicted in Figure 3.2, it is probably reasonable to extrapolate annual
movement patterns from periodic point counts because movement patterns probably shift
gradually in U.S. urban areas (even accounting for road closures due to construction). Security
is effective and stable in Raleigh, North Carolina, compared with Kabul, Asadabad, or Sangin,
Afghanistan, and the population of Raleigh is not likely to rapidly change movement patterns
or be displaced unexpectedly as might be the case in many areas across Afghanistan. It would
be logical to assume that accurate extrapolation of traffic volume data requires at least some
predictable degree of stability in the area in question. That kind of predictable stability cannot
always be safely assumed in Afghanistan.
Once collected, traffic volume data might be used to represent actual movement, sometimes used as a proxy for FoM. This was true in one reported assessment effort and might be
true in others. This approach does not take into consideration the fact that most traffic counts
are estimates. A broader range of assessment efforts identified in the research for this report
have sought to find and present a meaningful correlation between actual movement and support for GIRoA. Continuous counts that use persistent point collection might be the most
effective means of determining traffic patterns, but assessment staffs should remember that
these counts cannot necessarily be extrapolated to surrounding areas or adjacent roadways.
Perhaps more importantly, assessment staffs should be aware that more or less actual movement along specific routes is not necessarily indicative of more or less FoM or more or less support for GIRoA.
26
This approach of counting cars also defines civilian FoM narrowly—some people walk or use donkeys, horse-drawn
carts, bicycles, and other conveyances to travel.
27
Locals who are intent on selling such equipment might also simply steal the devices (interview with a military officer,
January 2011).
Analysis of past and Current theory and practice
39
Global Positioning System Tracking of Movement
It is possible to capture ISAF movement through the use of existing Global Positioning System
(GPS) devices (e.g., Blue Force Tracker) mounted on coalition vehicles, at least when these
devices are functional. Readings from GPS units are already used to analyze movement at
various movement-control centers across the theater, and some of this information could be
useful to assessment analysts. The best use for this information would be to identify physical or
security choke points for further analysis.28 It might also be possible to affix a certain number
of civilian vehicles with GPS devices to achieve a similar effect, but cost and other issues (e.g.,
willingness of civilians or officials to be tracked) might restrict collection to a certain extent.
Tracking civilian movement with GPS devices might also be useful in identifying insurgent
or criminal checkpoints and related physical choke points and in supporting movementcontrol analysis in addition to campaign assessment. Such efforts could be tried with ANSF
and GIRoA vehicles. Any technical analysis of movement through GPS devices would be
route- and time-specific, and it would feed rather than shape FoM assessment.29
Manual Collection: Impact on Tactical Units
Centralized requirements to collect movement data for FoM assessment will eventually reach
tactical units operating in rural farming or mountainous areas in Afghanistan. These units
sometimes travel many hours or entire days to reach remote villages in their tactical areas of
responsibility. Even local patrols to nearby villages require extensive planning and often carry
great risk for those involved. Collection requirements that demand some kind of presence outside of a combat outpost or patrol base over time will increase the burden and risk for these
units. For example, an infantry platoon tasked with counting the number of people moving
into and out of a market on a particular day using handheld click counters will have to conduct a combat patrol to capture that information. In addition to exposing themselves to risk,
these personnel will be trading a different mission—perhaps engagement with local leaders
or a security patrol—for the collection mission. While a unit can perform more than a single
task per patrol, physical data collection requires some form of trade-off at the tactical level.
Furthermore, since patrols are not, by definition, persistent, they are less suited than technical
collection means to capturing large quantities of data using methods that require consistent
collection over predictable periods. These costs and risks also apply to the collection of data
from fixed traffic volume collection devices. Centralized FoM metrics and collection requirements should be chosen carefully with these potential consequences in mind.
Infrastructure Analysis for Assessment
Infrastructure analysis would seem to be of particular interest for FoM assessment in Afghanistan because of the extensive funding and operational effort that ISAF and various government
agencies (particularly USAID) have put into the development of Afghanistan’s road, rail, and
air infrastructure. Theater-level assessment should inform policy decisionmaking, and policymakers have shown a particular interest in the cost-effectiveness and benefits of infrastructure
development. Technical and manual collection could be most effective in determining the
quality and availability of paths, roads, bridges, tunnels, and other types of infrastructure
28
GPS shows points of location over time, so it is possible to identify possible choke points by analyzing GPS data. Further
contextual analysis might be required to separate choke points from mundane features, such as truck stops.
29
It also might be possible to use ground moving target indicator data to track movement patterns.
40
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
required to facilitate (or restrict) free movement. Imagery analysis, photographic collection,
and other overhead collection methods are currently used to examine infrastructure for operational analysis. Past examples of these analyses include the study of rail capacity in South Vietnam (see Figure 3.1) and intelligence imagery analysis products, such as route studies, riverine
studies, bridge studies, and even such detailed analysis as culvert studies for major roadways.
In the military, most of these products are classified, but they are readily available to assessment staffs and are typically releasable to coalition partners. Figure 3.3 is an example of a photographic product that provides at least a general idea of road conditions, traffic capacity, and
traffic volume at a specific point in time on a particular route (the Khowst-Gardez Pass), as well
as a potential choke point.
Imagery products are often matched up with route reports from infantry or logistics
units, as well as with development reports from NGOs or aid organizations. These reports
would be most effective when matched with perception data on infrastructure and with traffic
counts over time along specific routes.
Figure 3.3
Overhead Photographic Image of Khowst-Gardez Pass, Afghanistan
SOURCE: Baker, 2009.
RAND TR1014-3.3
Perception Indicators: Polling, Surveys, and Other Collection
This section addresses efforts to collect and assess perception data for FoM. Assessment staffs
attempt to acquire timely and accurate data on perception of FoM to support holistic theater
analysis. The primary means of assessing perceptual FoM is through polls and surveys, but this
section describes other, more context-sensitive methods of collection that might assist FoM
assessment.
ISAF, IJC, and other organizations have produced some consistent polling information
on FoM perceptions over the past several years. The ISAF-sponsored Afghanistan National
Analysis of past and Current theory and practice
41
Quarterly Assessment Report (ANQAR) poll asks respondents a series of questions meant
to assess FoM, including ones that seek to gauge people’s willingness to use the Ring Road,
perceptions of safety on roads in their districts, perceptions of safety on roads outside their
districts, perceptions of the safety of their children going to school, and satisfaction with services, specifically the quality of roads. The results of this survey were included in a Center for
Army Analysis study of the FoM assessment process. Figure 3.4 is an example of a survey result
drawn from the March 2009 ANQAR survey. The figure shows how this information has been
presented in assessment briefings in the past.
Figure 3.4
Survey Results from ANQAR Poll on Freedom of Movement
Public perception: “How safe do you feel driving outside
your mantaqa during the day?”
35
31
32
Percentage of respondents
30
26
25
25
Overall, nearly 7 in 10 Afghans felt
at least a little safe using the
roads in their district.
20
20
December
2008
March
2009
19
15
15
12
10
10
8
5
1
0
Completely
safe
Mostly
safe
A little
safe
A little
unsafe
Very
unsafe
1
Don’t
know
SOURCE: ISAF Headquarters Strategic Advisory Group, 2009, p. 17.
NOTE: Mantaqa = area, village, or district (generally).
RAND TR1014-3.4
Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research Polls
Polls conducted by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research asked
respondents to assess the condition and availability of roads, bridges, and other infrastructure and to describe their personal level of FoM (“the ability to go where you wish safely”).30
These and other polls and ask important questions that help get at the issue of civilian FoM
for assessment purposes and, taken together, can begin to provide a broad overview of some of
the FoM challenges across Afghanistan. However, these questions are not necessarily sufficient
to address the issues raised earlier in this report. For example, they do not necessarily capture
the perception of economic costs associated with rerouted travel. There is no clear, stated connection between these polling questions and ISAF objectives, and countrywide polling data
do not present sufficient context to help assessment staffs understand what is happening in specific districts or provinces. Fortunately, most of these polls provide provincial data, along with
district-by-district data. This is more helpful, and these data can be matched up with infra30
Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research, 2010, pp. 5–6.
42
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
structure reports, movement reports, and other information to enable some kind of contextual
assessment. However, when aggregated, the context of these local data sets is lost.
Other Collection Methods and Sources for Perception Data
Polls and surveys alone are not sufficient to provide a well-rounded understanding of civilian
FoM perception from area to area. Other collection methods are equally or more important.
For example, various intelligence collection methods can be used to ascertain perception of
FoM among specific populations. Infantry patrols can and often do ask questions of urban
civilians and rural villagers about their perceptions of FoM, but these reports do not always
find their way from the tactical to the theater level for analysis or assessment. There is a great
deal of useful information on perception collected at the tactical and operational levels by not
only military units but also Provincial Reconstruction Team members, NGOs, and GIRoA
and ANSF officials. The degree to which this information is captured varies dramatically from
area to area and over time, and there is no comprehensive system in place to capture and assess
it at the center. Leveraging a comprehensive system to capture this information, though, might
place undue burden on subordinate units. This trade-off is typical of all centralized analysis
for assessment.
Some amount of structured collection is necessary to capture countrywide perception
information for centralized assessment. The best kind of data are local and contextualized, so
the more granular the poll, survey, or collection method, the better. However, as these data are
aggregated, they lose context, and it becomes more difficult to compare aggregated perception
data with other types of FoM information. As with technical and manual collection, requirements for survey or other face-to-face information collection should be carefully considered for
the impact they might have on subordinate units.31
It may also be possible to collect FoM perception information from GIRoA officials,
NGOs, and even insurgents. Officials can be contacted and polled through official channels,
and ISAF counterparts can engage with them to get direct feedback. NGOs can be similarly
engaged, and because some NGOs depend on ISAF or ANSF security for their FoM, they may
be more than willing to provide information.32 Insurgent perceptions of FoM can be gathered
through interrogation reports or other intelligence collection methods. Some of this information is probably being collected already; capturing it for assessment may only require identifying sources and transferring data.
Considerations for the Use of Perception Data in Assessment
Polling is probably the best way to determine perceptions of civilian FoM, but it is not foolproof and should not be used without consideration and caveat. Vincent, Eles, and Vasiliev
present a number of serious concerns regarding the ability to build random-sample polls in
Afghanistan. These concerns include the lack of a recent, accurate national census (the last one
was in 1979); the lack of sample frames for households, villages, and phone numbers; the lack
of village-level population estimates; the lack of an accurate list of populated places and standard village names; issues with interviewer safety and access; and cultural friction that might
reduce interview effectiveness (e.g., sex of the interviewer and interviewee, permission of local
31
It should also be noted that the types of questions asked in surveys and in face-to-face collection activities can themselves
shape perception and behavior in unforeseen ways.
32
This may or may not be occurring already.
Analysis of past and Current theory and practice
43
leaders).33 However, they argue that it is possible to overcome these obstacles and build useful
random samples for polling.
While it may be possible to build useful polls for certain areas, the security situation in
Afghanistan will preclude interviewers from entering some of the most dangerous—and thus
perhaps most important—areas. Some polling groups do have access to these areas, but it is
not clear what accommodations they have to make to gain this access. A common complaint
with polling is that Afghans are likely to try to deceive interviewers in an effort to shape coalition behavior, or simply out of fear. Polling agencies tend to deny that this is an endemic problem, and there are statistical methods to reduce the variance caused by deceit.34 However, it is
not clear to what degree these techniques ensure the accuracy of polls in Afghanistan or how
widely they are used. Some assessment officers do not believe that individual interviewers are
actually conducting hundreds of (approximately) 30-minute polls in very remote and often
dangerous places over the course of an average collection period (about two to three weeks).35
There is some concern that interviewers are filling in the data themselves rather than conducting dangerous and onerous interviews. While there are data analysis methods designed
to identify the patterns likely to emerge from interviewer falsification, these methods are not
foolproof, and they do not necessarily account for the savvy and ingenuity of the interviewers.
Sometimes, falsification is not discovered until well after the data have been assimilated into a
campaign assessment.36 Finally, polling data only reflect opinion at a specific point in time, and
opinion in COIN environments is subject to rapid change. Time-series analysis can provide
some insight into changes in opinion over time (e.g., interrupted time-series analysis on a yearto-year basis), but these analyses are historical rather than current or predictive.
If polls are used to determine perceptions of FoM, then it would make sense to attempt to
correlate polling data with other information, such as atmospherics or patrol reporting. At the
very least, polling data should be presented with clear caveats, and assessment reports should
be transparent in that they allow consumers to see how polls were constructed, executed, and
analyzed.
Proxy Metrics for Freedom of Movement
Directly measuring FoM has proven to be difficult because FoM is hard to define and is often
undetectable without excellent access to information and a balance of perception and physical
data. Therefore, many units and assessment groups have resorted to the use of proxy metrics
to assess FoM. In theory, a good proxy metric is an indicator that provides insight into the
desired metric or variable (in this case, FoM) indirectly. For example, one senior U.S. military
33
Vincent, Eles, and Vasiliev, 2010.
34
See, e.g., Farber, 1963. Methods have improved significantly since this article was published, but Farber provides a good
explanation of the problem and possible solutions.
35
These opinions were expressed to the authors during informal conversations over the course of 18 months of interaction
with assessment staffs during research for this and other RAND studies.
36
For example, Spagat (2010, p. 18), points to possible data fabrication in the Lancet II study of Iraq mortality published in
2006. He was not able to complete his analysis of the Lancet II study until March 14, 2008. Data analysis alone might take
less time, but it is not clear that these analyses are always conducted for polls in Afghanistan or that they are always released
in a time frame that would reinforce or repudiate the polls prior to their assimilation into theater assessment products.
44
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
officer with experience in RC East relied on the number of shops opening in local markets to
determine the ability and willingness of people to move.37 Because markets are usually located
in district centers or near other natural hubs, people must travel from isolated areas to reach
them. A similar proxy metric for FoM of GIRoA officials (and possibly civilians more generally) could be the frequency with which officials show up for work. This could be a useful proxy
metric that reflects the ability and willingness to move from one’s residence to one’s workplace,
but people might move even if they are afraid to do so. The most commonly used proxy metric
is attack reporting along routes of travel.
Attack Proxy Metrics
The attack report proxy examines the number and frequency of attacks conducted along various routes, usually within several hundred meters of a main thoroughfare. It purports to show
the danger to civilians, ISAF personnel, GIRoA officials, and NGO staff traveling along this
route and it also hints at delays in travel caused by attacks (cordon, forensics, etc.). Figure 3.5
depicts an attack proxy metric chart designed to compare physical FoM with perception
information.
Attack report proxy metrics might be a “best-available” solution when direct measurement and other proxies are too difficult to implement. However, unless very carefully selected
and tested, proxy metrics can be broad and inaccurate indicators. Before they can be trusted, it
is important to establish their relationship to the situation one seeks to assess. The attack proxy
approach, in particular, presents a number of concerns in this regard:
• Terrain shapes reporting to the point that attacks themselves may not affect the route in
question. In a condensed urban or urban ring area, an attack 100 meters from a main
Figure 3.5
Attack Incident Reports over Time for Freedom of Movement Assessment
Attacks within 500 meters of ISAF routes
400
• Comparing data from January–April 2009 with data from the same period
in 2008, attacks within 500 meters of ISAF routes were up 36%
• Results of increased security measures (implemented
September 2008):
– Fewer attacks on bridges
– Less effective attacks
350
Number of attacks
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
2007
2008
2009
SOURCE: NATO Joint Operations/Intelligence Information System data in ISAF Headquarters Strategic
Advisory Group, 2009, p. 17.
RAND TR1014-3.5
37
Interview with senior U.S. military officer, January 2011, Washington, D.C.
Analysis of past and Current theory and practice
45
road could be several streets away and might not affect traffic on the main road. In rural
terrain, an attack 500 meters off the road, especially near a significant feature, such as a
hill, might have no impact on movement along a roadway on the other side of the feature.
Furthermore, GPS coordinates of attacks are not always accurate, particularly when convoys press through attacks. These reports become less accurate as Afghan National Army
units increasingly operate unpartnered.
• Attack reports only address routes frequented by ISAF or ANSF traffic and not alternate
routes that might be preferred by civilians attempting to avoid areas of likely violence.
There will be more correlation in areas with limited road networks (e.g., mountain passes)
and less correlation in areas with multiple routes (e.g., rural farming, urban and urban
ring areas).
• Separate research on assessment conducted between November 2009 and February 2011
shows that attack report databases contain a large but unknown number of reporting,
recording, or indexing errors. Inaccuracies and gaps in attack data—and in other data
sets that might be used as proxy metrics—further undermine the value of these data as
proxy indicators for FoM.
• While an attack against ISAF or ANSF personnel might indicate that a route is less trafficable for security forces, it is not clear that the occurrence of an attack can be equated
with more or less perceptual or actual FoM for civilians. In many cases, civilians are quite
comfortable transiting routes that undergo insurgent attacks because, among other reasons, the insurgents assure them that they will only attack military targets, the civilians
are associated with the insurgents and feel safe from attack, or the civilians make a costbenefit analysis and determine that the need to travel outweighs the risk of attack.
All centralized assessment metrics are proxy metrics with varying degrees of accuracy and
utility. Because FoM cannot be precisely defined or quantified, all quantitative and qualitative
metrics are proxy metrics for strategic objectives, and each has varying degrees of utility for
assessment.38 Any report containing quantifiable metrics should clearly explain how the metric
was used, why it was used, and what it might or might not show. Efforts to conduct statistical
correlation analysis of any two variables in the absence of a clear definition of FoM should be
carefully explained in reporting.
Civilian and Third-Party Efforts to Assess Freedom of Movement
Several non-ISAF organizations have attempted to assess FoM in Afghanistan. Two sources
are of particular interest: USAID’s Roads Socio-Economic Impact Assessment (2008) and the
Cooperation for Peace and Unity’s (CPAU’s) Human Security Indicators Project reports on
Kunduz and Nangarhar provinces (2010a, 2010b). These organizations have assessed FoM
using similar indicators and what appear to be similar methods.39
38
Click counts or other manual efforts to observe actual movement are actual metrics, but they are proxies for FoM when
it is not clear that more actual movement of, for example, motor vehicles on roads is equal to more FoM.
39
The methodology for the CPAU project was described in a paper provided to the authors (Cooperation for Peace and
Unity, undated).
46
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
U.S. Agency for International Development Assessment
The USAID report assesses the impact of FoM and infrastructure on socioeconomic development along the southern Ring Road and along provincial and district roads in Nangarhar,
Kunar, Panjshir, Balkh, and Kunduz. The 2008 report compares its data with those in a similar
2003 report and also with a baseline study conducted using a separate methodology in 2004.40
The researchers conducted a click count and type count of vehicle traffic at selected points
along roads and surveyed people in a sample of villages in the areas studied. For example, part
of the 2008 study relied on traffic counts for the southern Ring Road conducted between 6:00
a.m. and 8:00 p.m. local time over a seven-day period. Figure 3.6 is a sample chart from the
click-count survey. It shows the number of vehicles traveling both east and west on two separate road sections (Kandahar/Delaram and Herat) in 2003 and 2008.41
The overall report incorporates a range of data, including ticket prices for bus travel,
household income in affected areas, school attendance, mean distances to reach schools from
home, average cost of travel, and time and distance to medical care by mode of travel. The
study of the district and province roads (as defined by USAID) showed an increase in traffic
on roads improved by USAID contracts and, in one case, a reduction in travel time by 50 percent.42 Assessment and recommendations in the report reflect a combination of physical data
collection (click counts), research on existing indicators (bus ticket prices), and survey collection to determine perception and estimate travel times, the economic burden of travel, and the
availability of services. This might be the most comprehensive FoM assessment conducted in
Afghanistan to date.
Figure 3.6
Sample Click Count of Vehicle Traffic
2,000
2003
1,756
2008
1,636
Number of attacks
1,500
1,420
1,413
1,068
1,000
928
815
774
500
0
Eastbound
Westbound
Kandahar/Delaram
SOURCE: USAID, 2008, Part I, p. 14.
RAND TR1014-3.6
40
USAID, 2008, Part I, p. 11.
41
USAID, 2008, Part I, p. 14.
42
USAID, 2008, Part II, p. 2.
Eastbound
Westbound
Herat
Analysis of past and Current theory and practice
47
The utility of the USAID report for assessment staffs is that it shows how traffic volume
data collection can be combined with other survey data to provide an impression of FoM that
is broader than single-scope or single-factor analysis. However, as interesting and informative
as the report may be, it is not clear that its findings can be correlated with other data to show
causation or to show that actual movement is somehow related to support for GIRoA; more
traffic is not necessarily “better” in terms of achieving a given strategic end state.
Cooperation for Peace and Unity Assessment
The CPAU Human Security Project reports directly assess “freedom of movement and access
to services.”43 While they do not clearly define what FoM is or why it matters, they are among
the only available province-level reports produced by a non-ISAF organization that directly
address FoM as a separate category. Researchers collected data in nine districts across three
provinces from January to March 2010 and then on a monthly basis from April to August
2010. The reports assess the cost and frequency of public transportation, informal taxes
along specified roads, school attendance, and health service usage as proxy metrics for FoM.
Figure 3.7 provides an example from a CPAU FoM report. The example uses scores from 0 to 5
based on estimated population sizes, with 0 indicating a very poor level of human security and
5 indicating a very high level of human security, which, in this case, might be loosely equated
with civilian FoM.
The results seem to be presented on an ordered (ordinal) scale, but the way they are presented implies ratio scale properties. In other words, the numbers have no actual value that
could be clearly equated with differences in ground truth, but they appear to have such value
because they are presented in ratio increments. It is not possible to determine the difference
between any two numbers in terms of real conditions on the ground. Note that in many cases
the changes reported are miniscule (e.g., a factor of 0.02 on a 0–5 scale). This is misleading,
because it is unlikely that any data set in COIN (other than ISAF casualty data) could be
considered more than “reasonably accurate”; thus, a 1/100 (or even 2/100) change even on a
0–5 scale probably would not be accurate.44 Small, incremental changes like this are probably
not meaningful changes, particularly in the absence of a clear, definitive scale; after all, FoM
changes often, rapidly, and unexpectedly. This kind of analysis can deliver precision without
accuracy. The CPAU FoM reports offer some limited insight into FoM for civilians, but they
could not be considered a comprehensive source for campaign assessment. Like the USAID
report, they rely on a limited set of inputs to produce information that is at once very specific
(district to district) and generalized (0–5 ordinal scores, use of a limited set of indicators that
may or may not be relevant). Scoring adds a layer of complexity and opacity because it is not
clear how the scores were developed, what they mean, or why they should be considered important in an overall assessment of FoM.
43
44
Cooperation for Peace and Unity, 2010a, p. 9.
The idea that such data are “reasonably accurate” at best is drawn from 14 months of research on Vietnam, Iraq, and
Afghanistan COIN assessment. Thomas C. Thayer, the architect of Vietnam-era assessment at the U.S. Department of
Defense and a chief COIN assessment analyst for nearly six years, used the phrase reasonably accurate to describe the more
accurate and useful data sets in his analyses. See Thayer, 1985.
48
Table 3.1
Sample Freedom of Movement Scores
Muhmand Dara
Surkh Rud
Indicator
April
May
June
Change
April
May
June
Change
April
May
June
Change
Cost and frequency of Afghanis per kilometer
public transportation
Journey per day × number of cars
3.33
1.67
3.75
0.41
3.80
0.88
3.77
–0.03
4.09
0.83
4.32
0.23
1.07
2.07
2.94
1.87
0.89
1.46
0.88
–0.01
1.88
2.34
1.89
0.02
2.20
2.78
3.34
1.14
2.35
2.83
2.33
–0.02
2.98
3.29
3.11
0.12
3.75
3.63
3.54
–0.21
5.00
4.00
4.13
–0.88
4.86
5.00
5.00
0.14
total
Informal taxes for traveling on road
Second Quarter
Change
Second Quarter
Change
Second Quarter
Change
School attendance (male students,
age 6–13) as percentage of potential
attendance rate
4.50
0.00
4.88
0.00
3.47
0.00
School attendance (female students,
age 6–13) as percentage of potential
attendance rate
3.08
0.00
4.10
0.00
2.98
0.00
total
3.80
0.00
4.50
0.00
3.23
0.00
number of patients using health care centers, by total
population
3.17
0.00
2.07
0.00
0.27
0.00
number of children
in school
April
May
June
Change
April
May
June
Change
April
May
June
Change
returnee, internal displaced person, and migrant
movements
4.07
5.00
5.00
0.93
–0.96
0.67
1.52
2.48
3.05
4.97
5.00
1.95
Cluster total
3.40
3.68
3.77
0.37
2.59
2.81
2.91
0.32
2.88
3.35
3.32
0.44
SOUrCe: Cooperation for peace and Unity, 2010a, p. 10.
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Jalalabad
Analysis of past and Current theory and practice
49
Summary of Analysis
Historically, counterinsurgents have focused on ensuring FoM for friendly security forces, controlling civilian movement to isolate insurgents, and reducing FoM for insurgent cadres. In a
few cases, counterinsurgents have also focused on improving civilian FoM, but it is not clear
that any of these efforts have considered civilian FoM in the context of the strategic end state.
While information on how counterinsurgents have assessed FoM in non-U.S. cases is limited,
it seems that in at least some instances the host-nation government focused on developing civilian FoM to foster a sense of normalcy. U.S. COIN assessment has traditionally focused more
on the near-term operational aspects of FoM and less on civilian FoM as a strategic end state.
In contrast to other campaigns, ISAF has focused on developing civilian FoM as a strategic end-state condition. Past and current FoM assessment at ISAF and IJC reflects a mix of
approaches that rely on either a small set of proxy metrics or generalized reporting requirements that allowed subordinate staffs to develop and report FoM based on locally available
information and local standards. Neither of these approaches is optimal; they represent best
efforts in the absence of greater resources and a more complete understanding of FoM and
its relevance to ISAF strategic objectives. The nature of FoM data collection and assessment
efforts also reflects the lack of available data, difficulty in collecting relevant data through
technical means, and possibly a reluctance to place undue collection and reporting burdens on
subordinate commands.45
While this report recommends definitions for FoM, the lack of a precise and broadly
agreed-upon definition for all circumstances makes it difficult to task data collection: It is hard
to collect information on something that is poorly defined and that changes unexpectedly and
unevenly from place to place. Technical and other physical collection solutions can provide
some insight into actual movement, and they can show choke points that might restrict FoM.
Some technical collection and assessment (e.g., of imagery data, ground moving target indicator data) can be accomplished in Kabul, while other collection requires physical action on
the part of tactical units. Physical collection may induce risk at the tactical level, so collection
requirements deserve careful consideration. Technical and physical collection is most effective in assessing physical infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, and it can be very useful in
assessing the ability of ISAF and ANSF personnel to move. It may be least useful in assessing
the combined perceptual and actual aspects of civilian FoM.
Capturing perception data is a seemingly straightforward task, and a number of polls
already capture some of this information. However, some polls do not have sufficient granularity to show context, few polling questions are precisely tied to a clear definition of FoM for the
purposes of ISAF strategic assessment, and concerns with polling methodology, discussed earlier, limit the overall utility of this approach. There are a number of other resources that could
help ISAF assess the perception of FoM among civilians and insurgents, but these resources are
not necessarily structured to fit into existing assessment processes.
The use of proxy metrics to determine FoM is a logical practice in the absence of better
information. Because the concept of FoM is nebulous, most metrics might be described as
proxy metrics to some extent: Every metric (or indicator) provides insight into the undetermined variable of FoM. If a proxy metric can show correlation with an agreed-upon standard
45
This last point is not empirically proven, but this sentiment was reflected in numerous conversations and interviews with
ISAF and IJC staff members between late 2009 and early 2011.
50
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
for FoM, then it might be useful for assessment. However, in practice, it will show something
less. The assessment staff will probably have to make some kind of subjective judgment as to
how the metric does or does not provide insight into FoM. There are some conceptual problems with applying proxy metrics, such as attack reporting, to FoM assessment, and any proxy
metric must be reported with clear caveats.
Third-party reports provide good insight into possible collection and analysis methods for
FoM assessment. The USAID and CPAU reports were not designed to meet ISAF standards
or to match up with ISAF objectives, but they show how click counts can provide potentially
useful data and how physical collection is limited by the COIN operating environment. Perception polling at the village level might also be useful in providing local context, but using
samples to represent areas not covered by polls is problematic in COIN because security situations and perceptions can vary greatly from village to village, depending on the relative presence of ISAF, ANSF, GIRoA officials, NGOs, and insurgents.
An analysis of past and current efforts to assess FoM revealed some innovative assessment
efforts. It also revealed inherent limits in the ability to assess FoM through centralized theater
assessment processes:
•
•
•
•
It is difficult to find a metric or set of metrics that captures FoM cleanly and precisely.
Efforts to gather more information can unduly burden subordinate commands.
A lack of data undermines centralized assessment.
Finding an effective, structured approach to FoM assessment will require some costbenefit analysis and a balance between context and aggregation.
Assuming that ISAF will continue to assess civilian FoM as a strategic objective, or as
an indicator of strategic progress, assessment staffs will have to determine how to reconcile
the dichotomy between increasing civilian FoM as a strategic objective and controlling civilian FoM as an operational objective. Further, staffs will have to determine how to differentiate between the effects of purposeful control of civilian FoM and environmental or insurgent
restrictions on that freedom. Contextual analysis will probably be necessary to unravel these
complexities.
ChApter FOUr
Recommendations
This chapter provides more detailed definitions for each of the five different categories of
FoM discussed earlier in this report. It also includes recommendations that are intended to
help develop or improve an FoM assessment process to support the development of campaign
assessments. These recommendations are methods for developing an assessment process for FoM;
they do not present a finished process with accompanying metrics.1 Officially defining
FoM, conducting objective-to-assessment analysis, and then defining collection requirements
will require an up-to-date and detailed understanding of ISAF objectives and theater collection capabilities that is available only to ISAF staff. It will also require input from staff sections
outside the assessment staff that will have equities in the definition of FoM and in the ways
in which FoM data are collected and reported. And the very process of analyzing objectives
for FoM should help ISAF clearly define the concept for both the campaign plan and Inteqal, identify metrics that might be of value, and eliminate metrics that might be unnecessary.
External research could not hope to replicate that process. However, it can help guide it.
Assessment staffs should build their FoM assessment process on the understanding that
sometimes FoM is desirable, but in many cases it is not. This understanding is paramount to
developing and implementing a realistic assessment process, because any such process must
account for purposeful reductions in FoM. Assessment must also address or at least acknowledge the fact that there are several categories of FoM that are related to, but not necessarily
congruent with, civilian FoM.
There is no silver-bullet answer for the FoM assessment challenge. ISAF faces a complex task;
assessing FoM will never be easy, and there will always be disagreement over definitions, methods, reporting, and goals. To provide a useful assessment of FoM, the staff will have to make
subjective value judgments and perform cost-benefit analyses to determine what FoM means
for ISAF, how it might be assessed, and what format reports will take. This chapter proposes a
step-by-step analytic approach designed to help ISAF develop a useful and practical assessment
process for FoM. Recommendations are derived from the research and findings presented in
this report, but they are not immutable. Recommendations should be modified to meet practical realities or shifting objectives.
1
We are aware that ISAF has received such finished products (particularly over the past two years) and that these products
typically have not met ISAF requirements. This knowledge factored into the decision to provide ISAF with a process guide
rather than a finished assessment report.
51
52
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Proposed Definitions for Five Categories of Freedom of Movement
The purpose of providing recommended definitions is to help shape discussion of FoM within
the ISAF staff and to give the staff a jumping-off point from which to develop official definitions. These definitions were developed over two analytic sessions using a blank-slate approach.
Definitions were proposed, critiqued, discarded, and improved based on modified versions of
the brainstorming and devil’s advocate methodology as described in the U.S. government’s
Tradecraft Primer, as well as ongoing iterative discussion.2 They represent subjective but
informed analysis. No definition can capture all aspects of FoM, and no definition will fit all
circumstances required to understand FoM in context. Therefore, these definitions are presented in an effort to narrow the problem of FoM assessment and to assist in linking FoM to
objectives. Distinctions are drawn between similar categories (e.g., civilian and NGO) because,
despite similarities, it is possible to have one type of FoM and not the other (e.g., civilians can
move but NGOs face threats from local insurgents).
FoM for civilians: The ability and the perceived ability of Afghans (who do not work for the
government, security forces, or NGOs or belong to insurgent groups) to move to and from a
desired location at will and without undue danger, physical restriction, or economic burden
in order to meet their needs.
Note that “needs” is intentionally undefined. It may refer to basic needs but should also
encompass advanced needs, such as personal fulfillment; basic subsistence may not be sufficient to build support for GIRoA. “Undue” might be equated with peacetime criminal violence. Achieving FoM depends on the creation of a combination of actual freedom and the
perception of freedom.
FoM for ISAF and ANSF: The ability and the perceived ability of ISAF and ANSF personnel to move to and from a desired location to achieve mission objectives without undue
threat of attack or physical restriction.
Note that perception is included in this definition because the perception of threat can
shape movement behavior by keeping convoys off specific routes or patrols on specific paths.
FoM for GIRoA officials:3 The ability and the perceived ability of government officials to
move to and from their residences or offices to any area necessary to fulfill duties without
undue threat of attack or physical restriction.
One of the most difficult aspects of assessing GIRoA officials’ FoM will be to determine
whether officials are free to travel outside of their daily job routines, if necessary, to excel in
their duties. For example, a district governor can simply show up at the office every day, but
constituents may be dissatisfied if he or she does not visit outlying areas in the district. Proxy
2
See U.S. Government, 2009a, pp. 17, 27. This primer contains guidelines for conducting structured analytic exercises
that are often used to proof or reinforce intelligence analysis. We modified the brainstorming and devil’s advocate techniques to provide some structure to our analysis and efforts to develop well-defined and thoroughly critiqued definitions.
3
We do not address the criminal activity or insurgent support activities that some GIRoA officials might engage in. However, this added layer of complexity should be considered during the assessment process.
recommendations
53
metrics that show officials sleeping in the areas where they work or showing up for work are
helpful but probably not sufficient to determine FoM or overall success.
FoM for NGOs: The ability and the perceived ability of NGO staff to move to and from an
area requiring services at will and without undue danger, physical restriction, or economic
burden in order to meet needs.
This could apply to both local and international NGOs. While all NGOs share some
characteristics, each deserves some degree of contextual analysis. Economic burden is included
in the NGO definition because insurgent or government taxes might preclude the movement
of poorly funded NGOs. Still, NGO FoM could be considered distinct from civilian FoM
because insurgents and government officials view NGO workers differently than they view the
average civilian. Civilians might have the freedom to move in areas where NGOs do not. Western government officials not under ISAF protection could also be considered in this category.
FoM for insurgents: The ability and perceived ability of insurgents to move to and from an
area to transport supplies, conduct attacks, collect intelligence, or engage contacts without
threat of attack, detention, or physical limitation.
Intelligence officials may use a separate definition or may have input into this definition.
Perception matters to insurgents just as it does to ISAF and ANSF.
Division of Labor: Finding a Balance Between Bottom-Up and Centralized
Assessment
Research for this report showed that context shapes the availability and meaning of FoM
data, and FoM can mean different things to different groups in different areas over different
periods. Aggregation of FoM data can hide important distinctions at lower levels, particularly
because active ISAF or ANSF control measures can decrease perceived and actual (physical)
FoM. Moreover, even in its most general sense, FoM can be good or bad for ISAF in different
circumstances. Therefore, some part of the FoM assessment process should strive to capture
contextual assessment. The best way to develop context in assessment is from the bottom up.
Therefore, it makes sense to delegate some or a good portion of FoM assessment to subordinate
commands at the RC level and below. This approach is already in place for many categories
of assessment, and RCs sometimes produce FoM assessment reports or describe FoM in their
assessments. It would help ISAF determine overall progress if there was some consistency to
this reporting. However, an overly structured or directive process would be counterproductive because it would reduce the flexibility required to provide an accurate and contextual
assessment.
We recommend a twofold approach to FoM assessment. This approach seeks to meet
existing requirements to conduct centralized assessment of (generally) quantitative data and
the need to obtain relevant contextual assessment.
Contextual, Bottom-Up Assessment of Freedom of Movement
ISAF clearly defines all relevant categories of FoM and clearly ties them to objectives, then presents this analysis as a comprehensive but loosely guided requirement to subordinate commands.
54
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
In essence, the process tells ISAF, “Here is what FoM is in general terms, here is why it matters
strategically, and here is what we need from you in the form of a finished assessment.” The finished assessment should be narrative in format but can contain quantitative data, imagery, and
maps as long as they are described in context. ISAF assessment staffs could create a template for
this assessment that includes a definition of FoM, the objectives, and the categories for reporting. These reports could be collected at the theater level, analyzed and compared with the centralized assessment, and incorporated into finished theater products. The battalion staff would
probably be the first point at which bottom-up assessment could begin, with input from units
subordinate to the battalion.
Centralized Assessment of Collected and Available Data
ISAF continues to conduct centralized assessment of both collected and readily available information to develop a holistic theater-wide understanding of FoM that adequately takes into
account its context-dependent interpretations. Because aggregation reduces context in regional
reporting, centralized assessment should focus on areas of interest that require less context, that
have a relatively homogeneous and well-understood context, and that are more easily assessed
through aggregation or technical means. For example, polling data should be compared at the
subregional level with other indicators to determine FoM in context, but national sentiment
can continue to be assessed through national polling. ISAF and ANSF FoM might be assessed
by the theater assessment staff using GPS data or formal reporting. Infrastructure analysis
can be used to feed centralized assessment of physical movement restrictions that might affect
FoM.
Building a Freedom of Movement Assessment Process
This is a guide—and only a guide—that an assessment staff might use to conduct a stepby-step analysis of FoM assessment for both the ISAF campaign plan and the Inteqal transition plan. The proposed process is derived from research conducted for this report and from
research conducted since November 2009 and for the U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Activity
examining the assessment process in Afghanistan from the RC to the NATO level.4
It might be necessary to develop two separate processes to meet the different needs of
each plan, particularly since GIRoA leads the Inteqal assessment process. While an outside
organization could be tasked with producing an FoM assessment methodology, the process of
developing a course of action internally will help ensure that the finished product reflects the
capabilities of the staff, the realities of collection and analytic capabilities, and the immediate
requirements of senior decisionmakers in ISAF. It will allow structured input from other staff
sections—particularly IJC, the RCs, and ISAF operations, intelligence, and movement-control
staffs—to ensure that FoM assessment is generally understood and reflects capabilities and
limitations across the theater. RCs will be particularly well positioned to inform ISAF assessment staffs on collection, cost-benefit calculations, and risk analysis.
4
Connable, 2010a, 2010b.
recommendations
55
This step-by-step process should also help the staff to identify and uncover data sources
and check long-standing assumptions regarding the campaign and transition assessment
processes:
1. Agree upon a clear definition of FoM for each category that might be considered for assessment. The staffs should also consider at this point whether categories could be combined, or other categories added, but they should be willing to revisit this issue as the
assessment process develops. This first step will help staffs decide what FoM is and
whether or how they should proceed in developing an FoM assessment methodology.
2. Decide whether to assess FoM as a strategic MOE or just use some FoM-related indicators to
feed other categories of assessment. Unless there is a stated requirement for ISAF to assess
FoM holistically, there is no practical reason that the staff could not break apart elements of FoM and address them as separate issues or use them to feed existing assessment categories. For example, perception assessment for FoM could remain rolled into
the overall assessment of Afghan perceptions of security, government control, and infrastructure development, while physical infrastructure assessment could remain specifically focused on movement access.
3. Determine which objectives require the assessment of FoM and which categories of FoM are
relevant, and why. Assuming ISAF will produce holistic FoM assessments, staffs should
clearly tie the assessment of FoM to each identified objective. For example, if a strategic
objective is to ensure the security of the population, then civilian FoM could be identified as both a condition within this objective (in other words, an MOE) and an indicator. This objective might also require subordinate MOEs linked to FoM for ANSF and
GIRoA officials.
4. Based on step 2, develop a narrative explanation describing how and why FoM is relevant
to each objective. This narrative will be used to shape the assessment process, justify collection requirements, help subordinate commands understand the requirement for FoM
collection and assessment, and help shape analysis and reporting once data have been
collected.
5. Determine how FoM will be assessed. Before metrics are selected and collection requirements are issued, staffs should determine how they will assess FoM, where assessment
will take place, and why. Will they push some of the assessment requirements down
to the IJC or RC staff (which would then translate these requirements down to the
battalion level), or will they assume responsibility for the entire process? Exactly what
will be assessed at the theater level? Only this centralized process should generate data
collection and reporting requirements from major subordinate commands (e.g., RCs,
special operations units). It is also important to identify friendly operations designed
to improve FoM and consider specific methods to assess the success or failure of these
operations.
6. For centralized assessment, develop standards for the collection and reporting of data to the
center. Centralized assessment should define and describe exactly what is to be collected,
how it is to be collected, why it is to be collected (in detail), and how the information
will be used. It should ensure that the data make clear whether FoM is a good or bad
condition under the circumstances in question. Theater staffs should create reporting
formats and easy-to-use data pathways for report submission. Subordinate commands
are more likely to comply in terms of timeliness, precision, and accuracy when their
56
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
staffs and tactical units have a clear understanding of not only their requirements but
also the reasons for collection and reporting; they may be required to assume some risk
to collect and report FoM data. Setting clear standards will help ensure the reliability
of the reporting process.5
7. For subordinate assessment, develop broad requirements for FoM assessment. This report
recommends that RCs or subordinate echelons be given leeway to develop and write
their own FoM assessments for incorporation into the campaign and transition plans.
This process will help the theater assessment staff address the inherent inconsistencies
in the process of applying centralized assessment standards to what is an inherently
decentralized operation and environment. These assessments will necessarily be written
to different standards and will incorporate varying types of information. However, the
theater staff could provide a simple narrative reporting template to ensure some consistency between reports from area to area. Also, basic standards for reporting should be
furnished (e.g., what the reports should describe, how the reports should be tied to both
subordinate and theater objectives).
8. Build a collection plan for centralized collection. Once data requirements for the centralized portion of the assessment process have been determined, staffs derive data requirements and determine collection requirements. The first step in this process is to identify
existing data sources that could meet the needs of the FoM assessment; if it is not necessary to levy additional requirements on IJC or the RCs, those requirements should be
avoided. The collection plan should focus at least in part on determining what civilians
want from FoM in each specific area of concern. What is the standard for assessment?
This will probably not be easy to determine, but it should be considered. This point is
discussed in greater detail in the next section.
9. Determine how FoM data will be incorporated into the theater assessment process. Once
staffs have determined how FoM will be assessed, they should consider how FoM will
be compared and contrasted with other information during the production of the holistic monthly, quarterly, and semiannual assessments.
This step-by-step process is captured in Figure 4.1. These steps could be addressed in a
different order than presented in the list or the figure.
Collection of Data for Centralized Freedom of Movement Assessment
Metrics development and data collection requirements should be immediately derived from a
structured analysis of the linkage between objectives and FoM. Any data collection requirement
levied on subordinate commands should be considered only after all available data sources have
been identified, vetted, and considered for use. This is a list of recommended considerations for
use in shaping data collection requirements:
• Perform both a cost-benefit analysis and a risk assessment of each collection requirement.
Include subordinate commands in the analysis and assessment. Use this process to deter5
It would also be useful to explain to subordinate staffs what they will receive in return for their efforts. Will there be
some kind of value-added assessment produced by ISAF’s Afghan Assessment Group that is designed to inform RC staffs?
recommendations
57
Figure 4.1
Recommended Steps for Developing a Freedom of Movement Assessment Process
Define FoM
Assess as a whole or
by a category?
Determine which objectives
require FoM assessment
Develop standards for
collection and reporting
of FoM data
Determine how FoM
will be assessed
Build narrative tying
FoM to objectives
Develop broad requirements
for FoM assessment for
subordinate commands
Build a plan for centralized
collection of FoM data
Determine how FoM data will
be incorporated into theater
assessment processes
RAND TR1014-4.1
•
•
•
•
•
mine the practical trade-offs between the collection of these particular data and the performance of other missions, as well as the risk that the collection requirement might
induce at the tactical level. This process should inform rather than preclude outright the
development of collection requirements; sometimes, cost and risk are warranted.
Leverage existing intelligence information that may not already be incorporated into the kind
of finished intelligence products that are normally promulgated within the ISAF staff. This
information can be particularly useful in describing insurgent FoM and in identifying
infrastructure problems.
Conduct traffic volume collection (technical collection of vehicle movement) only when this
collection is understood to show a narrow picture of movement (typically) within a snapshot
of time. Sampling movement data for extrapolation at the province or theater level would
not be advised due to the complexity and volatility of the environment.
Further explore technical means for collecting movement data. These means should be pursued only to support limited, focused objectives in specific areas. There is probably not a
comprehensive technical solution to the FoM assessment challenge.
Reexamine polling questions at both the ISAF and subordinate levels to ensure that FoMrelated questions directly reflect the requirements implied in strategic objectives. Whenever
possible, FoM polling questions should be shaped to meet local conditions and tactical
command requirements for information. Polls should undergo regular review to ensure
that questions are appropriate and relevant to shifting objectives, that standards for collection are maintained, and that adjustments to the assessment process are accounted for.
Collection requirements should also feed subordinate requirements for information. Whenever possible, collection requirements should be sent to subordinate commands for comment and proposed modification prior to issuing a data collection requirement.
58
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Considerations for Assessing Freedom of Movement
The following are some additional considerations for the development of an FoM assessment
process:
• How should assessment differentiate between the five types of FoM identified in this
report, if at all? Which data are useful for which type of FoM assessment, and which are
useful for more than one type?
• What is “normal” or “desirable” FoM from area to area? What do civilians want? Is it
sufficient to be “satisfied” with security, or do they want more? It is difficult, if not impossible, to assess civilian FoM without first understanding local needs.
• How can perception information be captured in a way that reflects local conditions and
local needs (i.e., context), but in a format that can be aggregated?
• What are the various characteristics of physical threats, and how can information on
these threats be captured?
• What is the confluence between perception and physical FoM in a specific area and across
the theater?
• How can perception data be compared with physical reporting data in a way that produces an accurate, holistic picture of FoM?
• Are there elements of FoM that it is not possible to assess? Why?
• How should caveats be applied to FoM assessment to ensure that findings do not exceed
either the available data or methodology?
Bibliography
Historical documents in the Vietnam Center and Archive online database hosted by the Texas
Tech University can be accessed via a search at http://www.virtual.vietnam.ttu.edu.
Advanced Traffic Analysis Center, Accuracy of Traffic Detection Devices on Two- and Four-Lane Arterials,
Fargo, N.D.: Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University, April 2002. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.metrocount.com/corporate/endorsements/files/NDSU_ATAC_Report.pdf
Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research, Poll of Afghan Opinion, conducted
December 11–23, 2009, January 11, 2010. As of September 16, 2011:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_01_10_afghanpoll.pdf
“Airstrike Stops Enemy Attack in Afghanistan,” American Forces Press Service, December 29, 2010. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62275
Allison, Paul David, Missing Data, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2002.
Anderson, Joseph, “Military Operational Measures of Effectiveness for Peacekeeping Operations,” Military
Review, Vol. 81, No. 5, September–October 2001.
Ashcraft, Amber, “PRT, Locals Restore Panjshir Bridge Retaining Wall,” Panjshir Provincial Reconstruction
Team Public Affairs, April 20, 2011. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.cjtf82.com/en/regional-command-east-news-mainmenu-401/4415--prt-locals-restore-panjshirbridge-retaining-wall.html
Baker, Fred W. III, “New Roads Open Up Eastern Afghanistan Province,” American Forces Press Service,
February 27, 2009. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=53258
Bousquet, Antoine, The Scientific Way of Warfare: Order and Chaos on the Battlefields of Modernity, New York:
Columbia University Press, 2009.
Bowman, Christopher W., Operational Assessment—The Achilles Heel of Effects-Based Operations? Newport,
R.I.: Naval War College, May 13, 2002. As of September 15, 2010:
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA405868
Brookings Institution, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Iraq Index: Tracking Reconstruction and Security
in Post-Saddam Iraq, Washington, D.C., last updated August 24, 2010. See archive of past reports, as of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx
Campbell, Jason, Michael E. O’Hanlon, and Jeremy Shapiro, Assessing Counterinsurgency and Stabilization
Missions, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, policy paper no. 14, May 2009a. As of September 16,
2011:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/05_counterinsurgency_ohanlon/05_
counterinsurgency_ohanlon.pdf
59
60
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
———, “How to Measure the War,” Policy Review, No. 157, October–November 2009b. As of September 16,
2011:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5490
Carmines, Edward G., and Richard A. Zeller, Reliability and Validity Assessment, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage
Publications, 1979.
Carter, Major General Nick, British Army, “DoD News Briefing with Maj. Gen. Carter at the Pentagon
Briefing Room via Teleconference from Afghanistan,” transcript, U.S. Department of Defense, May 26, 2010.
As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4436
Center for Army Analysis, “Afghanistan Consolidated Knowledge System,” briefing, August 30, 2010.
Chada, Vivek, “India’s Counterinsurgency Campaign in Mizoram,” in Sumit Ganguly and David P. Fidler,
eds., India and Counterinsurgency: Lessons Learned, New York: Routledge, 2009, pp. 29–44.
Clancy, James, and Chuck Crossett, “Measuring Effectiveness in Irregular Warfare,” Parameters, Summer
2007, pp. 88–100. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/07summer/clancy.pdf
Clark, Clinton R., and Timothy J. Cook, “A Practical Approach to Effects-Based Operational Assessment,”
Air and Space Power Journal, Summer 2008. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj08/sum08/clark.html
Clausewitz, Carl Von, On War, Colonel J. J. Graham, trans., Champaign, Ill.: Project Gutenberg (reprint),
1874. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.netlibrary.com/urlapi.asp?action=summary&v=1&bookid=2009343
Clutterbuck, Richard, Guerrillas and Terrorists, London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1977.
Connable, Ben, Measuring Effects in Afghanistan: Recommendations for the Marine Expeditionary Force
(Forward) G-2, unpublished RAND research, January 2010a.
———, An Alternative to Effects-Based Campaign Assessment in Afghanistan, unpublished RAND research,
September 2010b.
———, Embracing the Fog of War: Assessment and Metrics in Counterinsurgency, Santa Monica, Calif.:
RAND Corporation, forthcoming.
Connable, Ben, and Martin C. Libicki, How Insurgencies End, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation,
MG-965-MCIA, 2010. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG965.html
Cooperation for Peace and Unity, Human Security Framework: Methodology Paper, undated. Obtained by
authors upon request.
———, Quarterly Report: Nangarhar Province, April–June 2010, Kabul, Afghanistan, June 2010a.
———, Quarterly Report: Kunduz Province, April–June 2010, Kabul, Afghanistan, June 2010b.
Cordesman, Anthony H., The Uncertain “Metrics” of Afghanistan (and Iraq), Washington, D.C.: Center for
Strategic and International Studies, May 18, 2007. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/070521_uncertainmetrics_afghan.pdf
———, Analyzing the Afghan-Pakistan War, Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International
Studies, draft, July 28, 2008. As of September 16, 2011:
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/080728_afghan_analysis.pdf
———, “The Afghan War: Metrics, Narratives, and Winning the War,” briefing, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, June 1, 2010.
Cucolo, MG Anthony, “DoD News Briefing with Maj. Gen. Cucolo from Iraq,” transcript, U.S. Department
of Defense, January 13, 2010. As of April 25, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=4533
Bibliography
61
Daniel, Lisa, “Coalition Works to Extend Southern Afghanistan Gains,” American Forces Press Service,
January 13, 2011. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=62447
Darilek, Richard E., Walter L. Perry, Jerome Bracken, John Gordon IV, and Brian Nichiporuk, Measures of
Effectiveness for the Information-Age Army, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, MR-1155-A, 2001. As
of September 16, 2011:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1155.html
Davis, Paul K., Effects-Based Operations (EBO): A Grand Challenge for the Analytical Community, Santa
Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, MR-1477-USJFCOM/AF, 2001. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1477.html
Democratic Republic of Vietnam, propaganda document, February 11, 1973a. Available via the Vietnam
Center and Archive online database.
———, “The Saigon Administration Must Insure the People’s Freedom of Movement, Freedom of the Press,
and Other Democratic Liberties,” translation of a clandestine radio broadcast, February 13, 1973b. Available
via the Vietnam Center and Archive online database.
Downes-Martin, Stephen, research professor, U.S. Naval War College, interview with the authors, Kabul,
Afghanistan, May 5, 2010a.
———, “Assessment Process for RC(SW),” unpublished draft, Newport, R.I.: U.S. Naval War College,
May 24, 2010b.
Dziedzic, Michael, Barbara Sotirin, and John Agoglia, Measuring Progress in Conflict Environments (MPICE):
A Metrics Framework for Assessing Conflict Transformation and Stabilization, version 1, Washington, D.C.:
United States Institute of Peace, August 2008. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.usip.org/files/resources/MPICE%20Aug%2008.pdf
Eisenstadt, Michael, and Jeffrey White, “Assessing Iraq’s Sunni Arab Insurgency,” Military Review, Vol. 86,
No. 3, May–June 2006, pp. 33–51.
Eriksen, Jørgen W., and Tormod Heier, “Winter as the Number One Enemy? Lessons Learned from North
Afghanistan,” RUSI Journal, Vol. 154, No. 5, October 2009, pp. 64–71.
Farber, Bernard, “Response Falsification and Spurious Correlation in Survey Research,” American Sociological
Review, Vol. 28, No. 1, February 1963, pp. 123–130.
Fayloga, Mark, “Afghan, ISAF Troops Complete First Task in Op. New Dawn,” International Security
Assistance Force Joint Command, June 21, 2010.
Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Monitoring Guide, May 1, 2001. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tmguide/index.htm
———, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual,
September 2010. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/hpms/fieldmanual/
Ferris, Elizabeth G., The Looming Crisis: Displacement and Security in Iraq, policy paper no. 5, Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution, August 2008.
Galula, David, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice, New York: Frederick A. Praeger, (1964) 2005.
Ganguly, Sumit, and David P. Fidler, eds., India and Counterinsurgency: Lessons Learned, New York:
Routledge, 2009.
Garamone, Jim, “Mullen: Kandahar Vital to Success in Afghanistan,” American Forces Press Service,
June 16, 2010. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59655
Garcia, Jose A., “Movement Visibility in Afghanistan,” Multinational Corps Northeast, April 9, 2010. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.mncne.pl/news/previous-years/2010/564-movement-visibility-in-afghanistan
Gartner, Scott Sigmund, Strategic Assessment in War, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1997.
62
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Gates, Robert M., “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age,” Foreign Affairs,
Vol. 88, No. 1, January–February 2009, pp. 28–40.
Giap, Vo Nguyen, People’s War, People’s Army, Honolulu, Hawaii: University Press of the Pacific, (1961) 2001.
Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, The Constitution of Afghanistan, January 3, 2004.
Graves, Greg, Patricia Murphy, and Frederick Cameron, “Improving Analytical Support to the Warfighter:
Campaign Assessments, Operations Analysis, and Data Management, Working Group 4: Current Operations
Analysis—Strategic and Operational Level,” briefing, Military Operations Research Society, April 19–22,
2010.
Greenwood, T. C., and T. X. Hammes, “War Planning for Wicked Problems,” Armed Forces Journal,
December 2009. As of September 16, 2011:
http://armedforcesjournal.com/2009/12/4252237/
Grier, Cindy, Steve Stephens, Renee Carlucci, Stuart Starr, Cy Staniec, LTC(P) Clark Heidelbaugh,
Tim Hope, Don Brock, Gene Visco, and Jim Stevens, “Improving Analytical Support to the Warfighter:
Campaign Assessments, Operational Analysis, and Data Management: Synthesis Group,” briefing, Military
Operations Research Society, April 19–22, 2010.
Guevara, Ernesto Che, Guerrilla Warfare, Miami, Fla.: BN Publishing, (1961) 2008.
Halmos, Paul R., Measure Theory, New York: Van Nostrand, 1950.
Headquarters, U.S. Department of the Army, Intelligence Analysis, Field Manual 3-34, Washington, D.C.,
March 1990.
———, Intelligence, Field Manual 2-0, Washington, D.C., May 2004.
———, The Army, Field Manual 1, Washington, D.C., June 2005.
———, The Operations Process, Field Manual Interim 5-0.1, Washington, D.C., March 2006a.
———, Civil Affairs Operations, Field Manual 3-05.40, Washington, D.C., September 6, 2006b.
———, Counterinsurgency, Field Manual 3-24/Marine Corps Warfare Publication 3-33.5, Washington, D.C.,
December 2006c.
———, 2007 Army Modernization Plan, Washington, D.C., March 5, 2007.
———, Operations, Field Manual 3-0, Washington, D.C., February 27, 2008.
———, Tactics in Counterinsurgency, Field Manual 3-24.2, Washington, D.C., April 21, 2009.
———, The Operations Process, Field Manual 5-0, Washington, D.C., March 2010.
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Small Wars Manual, Washington, D.C., 1940.
———, Intelligence, Marine Corps Doctrine Publication 2, Washington, D.C., June 7, 1997a.
———, Warfighting, Marine Corps Doctrine Publication 1, Washington, D.C., June 20, 1997b.
———, “A Concept for Distributed Operations,” white paper, Washington, D.C., April 25, 2005. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.marines.mil/unit/tecom/mcu/grc/library/Documents/A%20Concept%20for%20Distributed%20
Operations.pdf
HQDA—see Headquarters, U.S. Department of the Army.
Hume, Robert, director, International Security Assistance Force Afghan Assessment Group, interview with
the authors, May 7, 2010.
Hunerwadel, J. P., “The Effects-Based Approach to Operations: Questions and Answers,” Air and Space Power
Journal, Spring 2006. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/spr06/hunerwadel.html
Hunter, James P., “Engineers Ensure Freedom of Movement,” U.S. Forces–Iraq, October 26, 2006. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.usf-iraq.com/?option=com_content&task=view&id=6839&Itemid=109
Bibliography
63
International Security Assistance Force, “Transcript: Operational Update, Opening Statement for ISAF News
Conference,” transcript, June 6, 2010. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/transcripts/transcript-operational-update-opening-statement-for-isaf-newsconference.html
International Security Assistance Force Headquarters Strategic Advisory Group, “Unclassified Metrics,”
Kabul, Afghanistan, April 2009.
International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, “District Assessment Framework Tool,” spreadsheet,
2010a.
———, “Signs of Progress in Central Helmand,” press release, May 19, 2010b. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/news/signs-of-progress-in-central-helmand.html
———, “ISAF Forces Work to Improve Ring Road Freedom of Movement,” press release, July 1, 2010c. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/isaf-forces-work-to-improve-ring-road-freedom-of-movement.html
———, “Helmand Combat Team Commander Discusses Progress in Region,” press release, November 20,
2010d. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/helmand-combat-team-commander-discusses-progress-in-region.
html
———, “Afghan, Coalition Force Clears Enemy Safe Haven in Baghlan,” press release, December 14, 2010e.
As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/afghan-coalition-force-clears-enemy-safe-haven-in-baghlan.html
———, “Security Operations Continue in Larkhabi, Omar Khal, Shinwar,” press release, January 7, 2011a.
As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/security-operations-continue-in-larkhabi-omar-khal-shinwar.html
———, “Afghan, ISAF Forces Impeding Insurgents’ Ability to Operate in Kunduz,” press release, January 30,
2011b. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/afghan-isaf-forces-impeding-insurgents-ability-to-operate-inkunduz.html
———, “Road Work Begins, Linking Marjeh and Gereshk,” press release, February 1, 2011c. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/road-work-begins-linking-marjah-and-gereshk.html
———, “ISAF Joint Command Morning Operational Update, Feb. 27, 2011,” press release,
February 27, 2011d. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/isaf-joint-command-morning-operational-update-feb.-27-2011.
html
———, “Taliban Explosive Device Leader Captured in Kandahar,” press release, May 1, 2011e. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/taliban-explosive-device-leader-captured-in-kandahar.html
International Security Assistance Force Joint Command Chief of Staff, Operational Orders Assessment
Steering Group, unclassified briefing, November 19, 2009.
International Security Assistance Force Knowledge Management Office, “Afghan Mission Network,” briefing,
September 1, 2010.
International Security Assistance Force Regional Command East, “District Stability Assessment Tool 2.0,”
spreadsheet, 2010.
Interrogation report, Viet Cong suspect, Vo Dat Village, Binh, Tuy Province, December 14–15, 1965.
Available via the Vietnam Center and Archive online database.
ISAF—see International Security Assistance Force.
Isaszegi, Janos, “Lessons Learned and Recommendations: OIF (The Way Ahead),” briefing, Combined Joint
Task Force 7, October 4, 2003. As of September 16, 2011:
http://193.224.76.4/download/konyvtar/digitgy/publikacio/isaszegi/isaszegi_pub_2003_02.pdf
64
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Joint U.S. Public Affairs Office Planning Office and U.S. Information Agency, Long An Province Survey 1966,
Saigon, 1967.
Joint Warfighting Center, U.S. Joint Forces Command, J9, Standing Joint Force Headquarters, Commander’s
Handbook for an Effects-Based Approach to Joint Operations, Suffolk, Va., February 24, 2006.
Jolly, Richard, and Deepayan Basu Ray, The Human Security Framework and National Human Development
Reports: A Review of Experiences and Current Debates, United Nations Development Programme, May 2006.
As of September 16, 2011:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/NHDR_Human_Security_GN.pdf
Jones, Douglas D., Understanding Measures of Effectiveness in Counterinsurgency Operations, Fort Leavenworth,
Kan.: School of Advanced Military Studies, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, May 2006. As
of September 16, 2011:
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA450589
Kandarian, Arthur, and Ghalum Murtaza Sarwari, “DoD News Briefing with Col. Kandarian and Col.
Murtaza via Teleconference from Afghanistan,” transcript, April 14, 2011. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4812
Kilcullen, David, “Globalisation and the Development of Indonesian Counterinsurgency Tactics,” Small Wars
and Insurgencies, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2006, pp. 44–64.
———, The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One, Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press, 2009a.
———, “Measuring Progress in Afghanistan,” Kabul, Afghanistan, December 2009b.
———, Counterinsurgency, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Kough, Kris A., and Curtis A. Goller III, “Share the Road: Convoy Escort,” Army Sustainment, Vol. 42,
No. 3, May–June 2010. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/May-June10/share_road.html
Langer, Gary, ABC News, “Afghanistan: Where Things Stand,” briefing, Center for Strategic and
International Studies, March 12, 2010.
Loerch, Andrew G., and Larry B. Rainey, eds., Methods for Conducting Military Operational Analysis,
Alexandria, Va.: Military Operations Research Society, 1998.
MacLeod, David T., Freedom of Movement: Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)–Driven Intelligence,
Victoria, B.C., Canada: Royal Roads University, 2008.
Mao Tse-Tung, On Guerrilla Warfare, Samuel B. Griffith, trans., Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press,
(1961) 2000.
Marighella, Carlos, Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla, St. Petersburg, Fla.: Red and Black Publishers, (1972)
2008.
Marine Corps Order 1200.17, Military Occupational Specialties Marine Corps Manual, May 23, 2008. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO%201200.17.pdf
Mattis, James N., Statement of General James N. Mattis, U.S. Marine Corps, Commander, U.S. Central
Command, Before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Posture of the U.S. Central Command,
congressional testimony, March 1, 2011. As of September 16, 2011:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2011/03%20March/Mattis%2003-01-11.pdf
McChrystal, GEN Stanley A., and CSM Michael T. Hall, Afghanistan, “ISAF Commander’s
Counterinsurgency Guidance,” Kabul, Afghanistan: Headquarters, International Security Assistance Force,
2009. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/counterinsurgency_guidance.pdf
McChrystal, GEN Stanley A., and Ambassador Mark Sedwill, “DoD News Briefing with Gen. McChrystal
and Ambassador Sedwell from Afghanistan,” transcript, U.S. Department of Defense, March 17, 2010. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4589
Bibliography
65
McCuen, John J., The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War, Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole Books, 1966.
McFadden, Willie J. II, and Daniel J. McCarthy, “Policy Analysis,” in Andrew G. Loerch and Larry B.
Rainey, eds., Methods for Conducting Military Operational Analysis, Alexandria, Va.: Military Operations
Research Society, 1998, pp. 317–344.
McNeil, Taylor, “The Real Problem in Afghanistan,” Tufts Journal, September 23, 2009. As of September 16,
2011:
http://tuftsjournal.tufts.edu/2009/09_2/corner/01
Meharg, Sarah Jane, Measuring Effectiveness in Complex Operations: What Is Good Enough? Calgary, A.B.,
Canada: Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, October 2009. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Measuring%20Effectiveness%20in%20Complex%20Operations.pdf
Mowery, Sam, Warfighting Analysis Division, J8, U.S. Department of Defense, “A System Dynamics Model
of the FM 3-24 COIN Manual,” briefing, 2009.
Multi-National Force–Iraq, “Eight Terrorists Killed During Salman Pak Raid,” press release, Combined Press
Information Center, March 2, 2007. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.usf-iraq.com/?option=com_content&task=view&id=10298&Itemid=128
———, “Update: Local Citizens Fend off AQI Attack (Diyala Province),” press release, April 29, 2008. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.usf-iraq.com/?option=com_content&task=view&id=18895&Itemid=128
Murray, William S., “A Will to Measure,” Parameters, Fall 2001, pp. 134–147. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/Parameters/Articles/01autumn/Murray.htm
NATO—see North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “NATO in Afghanistan—Freedom of Movement,” video, November 12,
2008. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8Ml5hMIWlw
———, “NATO in Afghanistan—Highway Help, Making the Roads Safer,” video, May 18, 2009. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWJmYItdBNM
———, “Transition to Afghan Lead: Inteqal,” media background paper, March 2011. As of September 16,
2011:
http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_03/20110309_110309-ISAF-backgrounder-Inteqal.pdf
North Carolina Department of Transportation, “2009 Annual Average Daily Traffic, Raleigh, Included in
Wake County, North Carolina,” Map Sheet 6, Traffic Survey Group, August 2009. As of September 16, 2011:
http://dotw-xfer01.dot.state.nc.us/imgdot/DOTTSUMaps/AADT_URBANS/RALEIGH_URBAN/2009/
Sheet6.pdf
———, 2009 Interstate and Freeway Report, Traffic Survey Group, August 17, 2010. As of September 16,
2011:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/tpb/traffic_survey
Odierno, GEN Raymond, “Press Conference with Gen. Ray Odierno on MNF Forces in Iraq, June 2009,”
transcript, Council on Foreign Relations, June 30, 2009. As of September 15, 2011:
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/press-conference-gen-ray-odierno-mnf-forces-iraq-june-2009/p19737
Office of the Secretary of Defense, “Metrics Conference Outbrief to IJC/IDC,” unpublished briefing,
March 18, 2010.
O’Neill, Bard E., Insurgency and Terrorism: Inside Modern Revolutionary Warfare, Dulles, Va.: Brassey’s, 1990.
Paris Peace Accords, January 27, 1973.
Paul, Christopher, Colin P. Clarke, and Beth Grill, Victory Has a Thousand Fathers: Sources of Success in
Counterinsurgency, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, MG-964-OSD, 2010. As of September 16,
2011:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG964.html
66
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Perry, Walter L., “Linking Systems Performance and Operational Effectiveness,” in Andrew G. Loerch
and Larry B. Rainey, eds., Methods for Conducting Military Operational Analysis, Alexandria, Va.: Military
Operations Research Society, 2007, Chapter 20.
Perry, Walter L., Robert W. Button, Jerome Bracken, Thomas Sullivan, and Jonathan Mitchell, Measures of
Effectiveness for the Information-Age Navy: The Effects of Network-Centric Operations on Combat Outcomes,
Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, MR-1449-NAVY, 2002. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1449.html
Perry, Walter L., and John Gordon IV, Analytic Support to Intelligence in Counterinsurgencies, Santa Monica,
Calif.: RAND Corporation, MG-682-OSD, 2008. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG682.html
Perry, William L., “Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, American Bar
Association,” transcript, U.S. Department of Defense, August 6, 1996. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=998
Petraeus, David H., COMISAF’s Counterinsurgency Guidance, Kabul, Afghanistan: International Security
Assistance Force Headquarters, August 1, 2010a. As of December 21, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/from-the-commander/from-the-commander/comisaf-s-counterinsurgencyguidance.html
———, discussion on Meet the Press, transcript, August 15, 2010b. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/transcripts/general-petraeus-meet-the-press-transcript-august-15-2010.html
Rennie, Ruth, Sudhindra Sharma, and Pawan Sen, Afghanistan in 2009: A Survey of the Afghan People,
Kabul, Afghanistan: Asia Foundation, December 2009. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/Afghanistanin2009.pdf
Reinsch, Michael, “New Bridge Promises Jobs, Freedom of Movement,” press release, International Security
Assistance Force Joint Command, undated. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/new-bridge-promises-jobs-freedom-of-movement.html
Rosenberger, Leif, economic adviser, U.S. Central Command, “Expeditionary Economics (EE):
From Aid . . . to Market and Trade—Modern Silk Road (MSR) Vision in and Around Afghanistan,” briefing
at the National Defense University, August 25, 2010. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/docUploaded/Economic_Security_ROSENBERGER_PPT.pdf
Rubin, Alissa J., “U.S. Report on Afghan War Finds Few Gains in 6 Months,” New York Times, April 29,
2010. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/asia/30afghan.html
Schroden, Jonathan J., “Measures for Security in a Counterinsurgency,” Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 32,
No. 5, October 2009, pp. 715–744.
———, email exchange with the authors, February 1, 2010a.
———, email exchange with the authors, September 29, 2010b.
———, briefing at the U.S. Naval War College, Providence, R.I., October 19, 2010c.
———, email exchange with the authors, October 27, 2010d.
———, email exchange with the authors, February 11, 2011.
Sciutto, Jim, “McChrystal: ‘A New Clarity of Mission’ in Afghanistan,” ABC News, December 2, 2009. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/Afghanistan/
obamas-afghanistan-strategy-gen-stanley-mcchrystal-rallies-troops/story?id=9224685&page=2
Sky, Emma, Preventing Arab-Kurd Conflict in Iraq After the Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, Peace Brief No. 86,
Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, March 22, 2011.
Smith, Duane, Handbook of Simplified Practice for Traffic Studies, Ames, Ia.: Center for Transportation
Research and Education, Iowa State University, November 2002. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/traffichandbook/
Bibliography
67
Smith, Edward Allen, Effects-Based Operations: Applying Network Centric Warfare to Peace, Crisis, and War,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense Command and Control Research Program, November 2002.
Smith, Leanne M., “Implementing International Human Rights Law in Post Conflict Settings—Backlash
Without Buy-In: Lessons from Afghanistan,” Muslim World Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2008,
pp. 1–23.
Smith, Jes L., “40th Engineers Keep Roads Safe in Afghanistan,” press release, 16th Mobile Public Affairs
Detachment, International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, undated. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.isaf.nato.int/article/isaf-releases/40th-engineers-keep-roads-safe-in-afghanistan.html
Soeters, Joseph, “Measuring the Immeasurable? The Effects-Based Approach in Comprehensive Peace
Operations,” draft revision of a paper presented at the tenth European Research Group on Military and
Society conference, Stockholm, Sweden, June 23, 2009.
Sok, Sang Am, Center for Army Analysis, “Assessment Doctrine,” briefing presented at Allied Information
Sharing Strategy Support to ISAF Population Metrics and Data Conference, Brunssum, Netherlands,
September 1, 2010.
Spagat, Michael, “Ethical and Data-Integrity Problems in the Second Lancet Survey of Mortality in Iraq,”
Defence and Peace Economics, Vol. 21, No. 1, February 2010, pp. 1–41.
Starr, S. Frederick, and Andrew C. Kuchins, with Stephen Benson, Elie Krakowski, Johannes Linn, and
Thomas Sanderson, The Key to Success in Afghanistan: A Modern Silk Road Strategy, Washington, D.C.:
Central Asia-Caucasus Institute Silk Road Studies Program, May 2010. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/silkroadpapers/1005Afghan.pdf
Suhrke, Astri, “A Contradictory Mission? NATO from Stabilization to Combat in Afghanistan,” International
Peacekeeping, Vol. 15, No. 2, April 2008, pp. 214–236.
Sullivan, Thomas J., Iraq Reconstruction Management Office, U.S. Embassy Baghdad, “Long Term Plan for
IRMO Metrics,” memorandum, August 2004.
Taber, Robert, War of the Flea, Dulles, Va.: Potomac Books, (1965) 2002.
Tariq, Mohammad Osman, Najila Ayoubi, and Fazel Rabi Haqbeen, Afghanistan in 2010: A Survey of the
Afghan People, Kabul, Afghanistan: Asia Foundation, 2010. As of September 16, 2011:
http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/Afghanistanin2010survey.pdf
Thayer, Thomas C., ed., A Systems Analysis View of the Vietnam War 1965–1972, Vol. 1: The Situation in
Southeast Asia, Washington, D.C.: Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis, Southeast
Asia Intelligence Division, Pentagon, 1975a.
———, A Systems Analysis View of the Vietnam War 1965–1972, Vol. 10: Pacification and Civil Affairs,
Washington, D.C.: Office of the Assistance Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis, Southeast Asia
Intelligence Division, Pentagon, 1975b.
———, War Without Fronts: The American Experience in Vietnam, Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1985.
Thompson, Robert, Defeating Communist Insurgency, St. Petersburg, Fla.: Hailer Publishing, (1966) 2005.
“Tip Leads Afghan Soldiers to Enemy Weapons,” American Forces Press Service, August 3, 2010. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=60293
Toevank, Freek-Jan, “Methods for Collecting and Sharing Data,” plenary presentation, Allied Information
Sharing Strategy Support to ISAF Population Metrics and Data Conference, Brunssum, Netherlands,
September 1, 2010.
Turashvili, Medea, “Restoring Freedom of Movement,” International Institute for Strategic Studies, undated.
As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.iiss.org/programmes/russia-and-eurasia/about/georgian-russian-dialogue/caucasus-security-insight/
medea-turashvili/restoring-freedom-of-movement/
UK Ministry of Defence, “ISAF: Engineers Rebuild Roads for Afghans, Coalition Forces,” blog post,
February 9, 2011. As of 25 April, 2011:
http://www.blogs.mod.uk/afghanistan/2011/02/isaf-engineers-rebuild-roads-for-afghans-coalition-forces.html
68
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Ulrich, Mark, U.S. Army and Marine Corps Joint Counterinsurgency Center, “Center of Influence Analysis:
Linking Theory to Application,” briefing presented at the National Defense University, 2009.
UN—see United Nations.
United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
———, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, General Comment No. 27: Freedom of Movement
(Article 12), November 12, 1999. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6c76e1b8ee1710e380256824005a10a9?Opendocument
U.S. Agency for International Development, “Paved Road to Lead Way to Development,” undated(a). As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.usaid.gov/stories/afghanistan/ba_afg_road.html
———, “Rebuilding the Roads of Afghanistan,” undated(b). As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.usaid.gov/stories/afghanistan/fp_afghan_roadparent.html
———, “Zabul Province Gets Its First Airstrip,” undated(c). As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.usaid.gov/stories/afghanistan/pc_af_airstrip.pdf
———, Status of Presidential Initiatives FY 2003, Washington, D.C., 2003.
———, “Roads Improve Journey from Kabul to Kandahar,” April 1, 2004. As of September 16, 2011:
http://afghanistan.usaid.gov/en/USAID/Article/80/Roads_Improve_Journey_from_Kabul_to_Kandahar
———, Status of Presidential Initiatives FY 2004, Washington, D.C., April 2005a.
———, Measuring Fragility: Indicators and Methods for Rating State Performance, Washington, D.C.,
June 2005b. As of September 16, 2011:
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADD462.pdf
———, Status of Presidential Initiatives FY 2005, Washington, D.C., July 2006.
———, Roads Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, Washington, D.C., 2008. As of September 16, 2011:
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADO247.pdf
———, “Cashing in on Improved Roads in Baharak,” August 31, 2009. As of September 16, 2011:
http://afghanistan.usaid.gov/en/USAID/Article/785/Cashing_in_on_Improved_Roads_in_Baharak
———, “Afghan Pomegranates Reach Europe,” May 4, 2010. As of September 16, 2011:
http://afghanistan.usaid.gov/en/USAID/Article/1086/Afghan_Pomegranates_Reach_Europe
USAID—see U.S. Agency for International Development.
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, “Understanding the Operational Environment in COIN,” briefing,
February 13, 2009.
U.S. Army, Combined Arms Directorate, “FM 5-0 Overview,” briefing, April 1, 2010.
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Commander’s Appreciation and Campaign Design, version 1,
TRADOC Pamphlet 525-5-500, January 28, 2008a. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/p525-5-500.pdf
U.S. Central Command, “CJOA—Afghanistan TF 236 Overview,” unpublished briefing, September 1, 2010.
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, A Compendium of Analytic Tradecraft Notes, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C., 1997.
As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cia/tradecraft_notes/contents.htm
U.S. Department of Defense, Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan: Report to
Congress in Accordance with the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 1230, Public Law 110-181),
Washington, D.C., semiannual report 2, January 2009a.
———, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, Washington, D.C., September 2009b. As of September 16,
2011:
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/iraq_reports/index.html
Bibliography
69
———, Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq, Washington, D.C., April 2010a. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/iraq_reports/index.html
———, Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan: Report to Congress in Accordance with
the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 1230, Public Law 110-181), Washington, D.C.,
April 2010b.
———, “Inaugural U.S.-Afghanistan Security Consultations Forum Held at Pentagon,” press release,
February 23, 2011. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14290
U.S. Department of Defense Office of Force Transformation, The Implementation of Network-Centric Warfare,
Washington, D.C., January 5, 2005. As of September 16, 2010:
http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS57633
U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General’s Inspection and Evaluation Directorate,
“Combined Forces Command—Afghanistan Management Decision Model,” Arlington, Va.: U.S.
Department of Defense, 2005.
U.S. Embassy, Saigon, Vietnam, Measurement of Progress, text of cables, November 7, 1967. Available via the
Vietnam Center and Archive online database.
U.S. Government, A Tradecraft Primer: Structure Analytic Techniques for Improving Intelligence Analysis,
Washington, D.C., March 2009a. As of September 16, 2011:
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/
Tradecraft%20Primer-apr09.pdf
———, United States Government Integrated Civilian-Military Campaign Plan for Support to Afghanistan,
Kabul, Afghanistan, August 10, 2009b.
U.S. Government Interagency Counterinsurgency Initiative, U.S. Government Counterinsurgency Guide,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, January 2009. As of
September 16, 2011:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/119629.pdf
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Operation Planning, Joint Publication 5-0, Washington, D.C., December 26,
2006.
———, Joint Intelligence, Joint Publication 2-0, Washington, D.C., June 22, 2007.
———, Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment, Joint Publication 2-01.3,
Washington, D.C., June 16, 2009a.
———, Counterinsurgency Operations, Joint Publication 3-24, Washington, D.C., October 5, 2009b.
———, Joint Operations, Joint Publication 3-0, change 2, Washington, D.C., March 22, 2010.
———, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Joint Publication 1-02,
Washington, D.C., November 8, 2010, as amended through August 15, 2011.
U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, Cultural Generic Information Requirements Handbook (C-GIRH),
August 2008.
———, Cultural Intelligence Indicators Guide, October 2009.
U.S. Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, “CORDS Report—Phong Dinh Province 2/68,” province
monthly report, February 1968. Available via the Vietnam Center and Archive online database.
———, Commander’s Summary of the MACV Objectives Plan, 1969. Available via the Vietnam Center and
Archive online database.
U.S. Office of the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Sons of Iraq Program: Results Are Uncertain and
Financial Controls Are Weak, January 28, 2011.
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Vietnam: May 1972, staff report, June 29, 1972.
———, Iraq: The Transition from a Military Mission to a Civilian-Led Effort, January 31, 2011.
70
Assessing Freedom of Movement for Counterinsurgency Campaigns
Vincent, Etienne, Philip Eles, and Boris Vasiliev, “Opinion Polling in Support of Counterinsurgency,” in
Alexander Woodcock and David Davis, eds., The Cornwallis Group XIV: Analysis of Societal Conflict and
Counter-Insurgency, 2010, pp. 104–125. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.thecornwallisgroup.org/cornwallis_2009/22-CXIV-front.pdf
Volesky, COL Gary, “DoD News Briefing with Col. Volesky from Iraq,” transcript, U.S. Department of
Defense, April 14, 2009. As of September 16, 2011:
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4401
Volker, Franke C., and Andrea Warnecke, “Building Peace: An Inventory of UN Peace Missions Since the
End of the Cold War,” International Peacekeeping, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2009, pp. 407–436.
Wagenhals, Lee W., Alex Levis, and Sajjad Haider, Planning, Execution, and Assessment of Effects-Based
Operations (EBO), Rome, N.Y.: Air Force Research Laboratory, AFRL-IF-RS-TR-2006-176, May 2006. As of
September 15, 2011:
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA451493
Westmoreland, William C., General Westmoreland’s Military Assessment for July, August 11, 1967a. Available
via the Vietnam Center and Archive online database.
———, “General Westmoreland’s Activities Report for September,” memorandum for the President of the
United States, October 10, 1967b. Available via the Vietnam Center and Archive online database.
Wilson, Jerry, “Gen. Petraeus Visits Dragoons in Zabul,” International Security Assistance Force, Combined
Team Zabul Public Affairs, undated.
Wolfowitz, Paul, Deputy Secretary of Defense, “Prepared Statement for the Senate and House Armed Service
Committees, April 22, 2004,” transcript, U.S. Department of Defense, April 22, 2004. As of September 16,
2011:
http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=111
Zehna, Peter W., ed., Selected Methods and Models in Military Operations Research, rev. ed., Honolulu, Hawaii:
University Press of the Pacific, 2005.
Zhukov, Yuri, “Examining the Authoritarian Model of Counter-Insurgency: The Soviet Campaign Against the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army,” Small Wars and Insurgencies, Vol. 18, No. 3, September 2007, pp. 439–446.